Which shows that he would have been safe if he hadn't destroyed himself with his immature behaviour.
That's right. Boris was brought down by Boris. If we could have Boris without the lies, entitlement and corruption, he could be looking at a decade in power. But that was never on offer.
I'm glad 56% think there should be an election. Seeing Tory members interviewed on TV, at least half still support Boris. I don't think the people choosing the next PM should be people who don't think there should be a change anyway...it's a mad situation.
I think that Brexit has quite literally driven Tories mad. They have lost their senses. Support for The Oaf is simply a manifestation of their collective mental breakdown.
The interesting question is: what is the cure? All countries need a moderate centre-right, pro-business, pro-good governance party. Even England. How does the English nation regain such a party? Only one route is obvious: PR.
Over to you Mr Starmer: save the Conservative & Unionist Party, cos they ain’t gonna save themselves.
Brexit was a symptom, not a cause.
Economic globalisation has led to most people's living standards in the West stagnating, and they aren't happy about it. This has led to the collapse of the political centre in most countries, though this has been expressed in different ways. Brexit, and increased support for Scottish independence, were the particular manifestations in Britain.
This is seen in other European countries that use PR. The way to fix the issue is through the economic fundamentals. Improve people's living standards.
I think it may be beyond a governments control to improve economic living standards over the next decade from here. What we could improve in that timescale is their physical and mental health. Time for a health and well being party!
Good idea. A surefire vote magnet. Also focus on a more equal distribution of wealth. This will improve the living standards of most people (esp those in real need) and is a more realistic ambition for our politics than the fairytale notion of all problems solved and everything paid for by "growing the economy". What that phrase means, from either politician or pundit, is "Let's play pretend".
I don't think growth in the economy is impossible. If the left simply falls back on income/wealth distribution rather than a clear economic policy they are making a big mistake in my view. The model should be wealthy northern European countries, none of whom so far as I can tell have given up on growth.
The economy needs to - and will - grow. What I'm talking about is the tendency of politicians to pretend they can implement policies which will make a big difference in short order to how much it grows.
They can't and they know it. They make such promises because it sounds good and avoids saying unappealing truths which equally cynical opponents will exploit. In truth all they can do on the size of the economy - without the fictitious magic money tree - is impact it on the margins and over the long term, plus avoid doing actively damaging things like Brexit.
Where they really can have an impact is on the distribution of wealth. They can Level Up the many and Level Down the few, or they can do the opposite. So I'd like to hear more on this from both parties - solid practical proposals from Labour to reduce inequality and from the Tories to increase it - and less undeliverable anodyne win/win indistinguishable bullshit about "growing the economy".
But I suppose that's too much to ask and I'll just have to whistle.
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Because Brexit meant no bands came to Glastonbury this year..... uh-huh....
It won't be the big festivals that are affected by these extra frictions and costs. Glastonbury will be able to absorb them easily. It will be the smaller, grassroots events operating on a shoestring that will suffer. But cutting the British population off from Europe culturally is part of the Brexit project, very much a feature not a bug.
Er, bollocks. I run a smaller, grassroots event on a shoestring. We had no EU acts before Brexit. It makes no difference to us. We did, for example, have a fantastic contingent of six bands come down from Southend, and everyone concerned will be delighted for that to happen in 2023.
Festival with no EU acts unaffected by Brexit shocker.
Does the EU produce pop music? I'm joking, but only just. The paucity of anything listenable coming out of mainland Europe over the past 60 years is baffling. I've just been looking through my iTunes library by most played - nothing from the EU in the top 100. A brief appearance by Stereolab and Jose Gonzalez in the next 100. Nothing in the 100 after that. Come on Europe, you can do better than this, surely?
Not a fan of U2 then?
But I did come across this little gem on wiki: "The European nation with the highest number of US number ones is the United Kingdom with 188. Sweden follows with 7."
Wife and I both bought the same U2 album in the years before we met and we're both equally embarrassed at having done so. One of the reasons we're a good match.
I used to think U2 were shite, then Achtung Baby came out, which I thought brilliant, but then they went back to being shite again. So I think they’re a shite band who managed one great album. It’s hard being a taste arbiter.
Soft spot here for Joshua Tree I'm afraid. Probablythe album @LostPassword was embarrassed by.
Actually neither of those, which were a bit before my time, so it may well be that we all reached the vulnerable age of considering buying a U2 album for different album releases.
He’ll get a ticking off for that. Apparently it’s arrogant to consider England the home of football.
By whom? Seems England has a better claim than most. Though as I never tire of pointing out, 'Football's Coming Home' referred to the tournament being in England, not any great expectation of winning the thing. It is, rather wonderfully one of the least optimistic England football songs ever written. It is all about faint hope despite repeated disappointment.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
And it took nearly 3 years to come to this stunning realisation? Johnson's inability to focus on anything other than himself was not exactly a secret and there were plenty of threads and posts here on PB saying what an atrocious leader he would make.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
Ditto London. Prime shopping streets in the West End - especially Oxford Street - are a sorry sight. Endless cheap American candy stores with no customers. A few homeless people. Bewildered tourists wondering why this street is famous. Tumbleweed
And yet go a block either way and food-drink-entertainment London is often booming, with people flooding back in to have fun. Just not shopping
Interesting article. I realised something was going on with the American Candy stores, from the sheer number of them on Oxford Street and the extremely small flow of customers. Whatever it's about, it's not about selling sweets.
I guessed it was to do with big leaseholders or freeholders preferring to have some brightly coloured happy-looking shops open during business hours, even if they collect hardly any rent from them, rather than allow dozens and dozens of units on Britain's most famous shopping street to lay empty, in which case as well as having to pay for security they'd also take a knock from the drop in the amount of custom coming to the area generally as it falls down the drain.
In addition, the mayor and the GLA and even central government would probably rather Oxford Street looks open for business than have tumbleweed blowing all along it. You could imagine big articles in the foreign press complete with photos, saying look at what used to be "Europe's most popular shopping destination" now. Not good for the London brand. Not good for the British one either.
On the plus side, it's quite fun that nowadays in many of the shops on Oxford Street you can test your haggling skills.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
What it's been for forever, as a valuable community meeting place and trading and commercial hub. It's fashionable to believe that the internet has made it obsolete, but I think it's more that ridiculous rents have destroyed it.
Action needs to be taken on landlords who keep stores empty and whose buildings are dilapidated. Anything unsightly needs to be fined, till these buildings become too hot to hold and are sold, or tenants found at more reasonable rents. Then the High Street is viable. Shops in scruffy high streets in Scotland are looking for £30,000 a year in rent. How much do you have to sell to take that kind of hit?
The "the Internet" (and more to the point supermarkets and large stores) have massively reduced the value of the High Street shops. The banks and landlords can't admit that commercial property of this type had collapsed, and neither can the councils.
When they embrace it, a new generation of individual shopkeepers can flood in and really revive the High Street. Which will be great.
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
Because Brexit meant no bands came to Glastonbury this year..... uh-huh....
It won't be the big festivals that are affected by these extra frictions and costs. Glastonbury will be able to absorb them easily. It will be the smaller, grassroots events operating on a shoestring that will suffer. But cutting the British population off from Europe culturally is part of the Brexit project, very much a feature not a bug.
Er, bollocks. I run a smaller, grassroots event on a shoestring. We had no EU acts before Brexit. It makes no difference to us. We did, for example, have a fantastic contingent of six bands come down from Southend, and everyone concerned will be delighted for that to happen in 2023.
Festival with no EU acts unaffected by Brexit shocker.
Does the EU produce pop music? I'm joking, but only just. The paucity of anything listenable coming out of mainland Europe over the past 60 years is baffling. I've just been looking through my iTunes library by most played - nothing from the EU in the top 100. A brief appearance by Stereolab and Jose Gonzalez in the next 100. Nothing in the 100 after that. Come on Europe, you can do better than this, surely?
Patrick Hernandez "Born To Be Alive" is a life enhancer. Danced to that once, in a disco in Benidorm, and really lost myself.
A couple of European bands that we saw touring Britain before Brexit. By no means large bands, and it looks like one of them has folded, but touring Britain was still worthwhile for them at the time, and would presumably be more difficult these days. A friend of ours has also travelled to do Irish harp gigs in England in the past. There are lots of musicians at the lower end of the success spectrum who would be adversely affected.
Seems mad that this wasn't covered as part of the TCA.
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
Anyone needing continuity of care should really be receiving that from a specialist. The value of continuity of care for mental health issues, for example, is generally pretty bad from GPs. If you make GPs more of a triage service then there's no need to see a specific doctor.
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
I was suggesting something similar to a doctor friend - that in towns etc you have “super surgeries” with many GPs and you can choose a specific doctor which means you have to get an appointment or you can turn up and use a cab tank system.
The other benefit is obviously scale where if you have 25 GPs in one building then the cost of specialist equipment is spread and so gives the ability to have more technical equipment available.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
And it took nearly 3 years to come to this stunning realisation? Johnson's inability to focus on anything other than himself was not exactly a secret and there were plenty of threads and posts here on PB saying what an atrocious leader he would make.
Fair point but many on the right just wanted brexit to be seen to be done, after remain had been seen off in a number of votes. The were rightly concerned the 17 million who voted for it wouldn't turn out again if it didn't get done.
Many didn't know or care what came with it. Many didn't read the small print. It turned out the small print said Net Zero hard target and Continuity Brown fiscal policy. And of course there was covid and Ukraine.
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
It’s unrealistic to expect gps to operate to schedule as every patient has unique concerns and needs. In reality even if every patient came in with skin cancer it wouldn’t be 4 appointments a day as GPs are primarily gate keepers, stopping unnecessary patients clogging up secondary care, while filtering in those who really do need to see a consultant. Other nations are different. Some European systems have a lot more testing on hand at the the gp equivalent and would do a fair bit of investigation fo4 said skin cancer patient. Here that is all done after referral. Our surgery has introduced e-consulting, where an email is picked up fairly rapidly (same day) and action taken, whether that be prescriptions or arranging a phone call or in person appointment. Works well for us (tech happy middle aged couple), may not do so for aged patients such as my mother in law ‘who just wants to turn up and wait’. In addition our surgery does run turn up and wait some evenings.
All in all there is a mix, and navigating it takes experience, but it can be bloody good. But it isn’t everywhere.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
Oh, what a shame. Only 10 posts before mentioning Russia. We thought the trolls were getting better than that.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
And it took nearly 3 years to come to this stunning realisation? Johnson's inability to focus on anything other than himself was not exactly a secret and there were plenty of threads and posts here on PB saying what an atrocious leader he would make.
Fair point but many on the right just wanted brexit to be seen to be done, after remain had been seen off in a number of votes. The were rightly concerned the 17 million who voted for it wouldn't turn out again if it didn't get done.
Many didn't know or care what came with it. Many didn't read the small print. It turned out the small print said Net Zero hard target and Continuity Brown fiscal policy. And of course there was covid and Ukraine.
Well, Brexit is done and not many seem to like it whether they are Leavers or Remainers.
What will be the excuse for electing the vacuous Truss? I do not like Sunak much but he does come across as actually knowing things and doing detail. Ms Truss comes across as a frustrated fashion icon who is never happier than when a camera is pointing at her.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
I suspect we are hyperbolising the threat of this coming winter (yes, I know, I'm not personally averse to hyperbole, usually)
Are we really going to see civil unrest over energy prices? Really?
Strikes me the British way is to grumble not riot. It will be like a winter from the 1970s, cold and grey and grim, but still nowhere near as bad as the winter lockdowns, so we will cope quite well. At least the pubs will be open so we can have a cheap pint of ersatz "lager" with a malnourished friend
I make this prediction confidently, as someone who fully expects to spend a large chunk of the winter in Bangkok
The UK is relatively well-placed compared to many other countries, so I expect the situation to be worse elsewhere.
We'll see if the payment strike gathers momentum. Politically that could make the situation very difficult for the government, particularly if it led to further collapses among the retail energy companies.
It would lead to a very rapid loss of sympathy from those who do pay to those who don't.
This Energy Payment Strike has an Extinction Rebellion feel to it.
A core group of activists trying to get third parties to wreck their lives for the political benefit of the core group.
I don't think it will go anywhere, except for bizarre stories, and some poverty-porn which may be accurate or fabricated, in a couple of newspapers, written by people who can afford to pay their bills.
I'm also with Leon on this, the UK is relatively well-positioned. One of the things that is different for the UK is relatively how little energy we use compared to other countries, which is a significant cushion.
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
Anyone needing continuity of care should really be receiving that from a specialist. The value of continuity of care for mental health issues, for example, is generally pretty bad from GPs. If you make GPs more of a triage service then there's no need to see a specific doctor.
This is wrong on many levels. Continuity of care is important. It is often not achieved in secondary/specialist care. The general trend has been to move more disease management out of secondary care and into GP practices.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
An escalating tax on empty or infrequently used commercial and residential properties more generally would be a good way to improve the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Empty properties have a negative externality on wider society and should be taxed accordingly.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
He comes across as utterly detached from reality just like JRM but a different form of detachment, usually economic rather than social snobbery.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
He has, however, been a backbencher for all but six months of the past 22 years. Suggesting there must be some mystery about why no one at all in his own Party has been able to spot his ministerial potential.
I'm glad 56% think there should be an election. Seeing Tory members interviewed on TV, at least half still support Boris. I don't think the people choosing the next PM should be people who don't think there should be a change anyway...it's a mad situation.
I think that Brexit has quite literally driven Tories mad. They have lost their senses. Support for The Oaf is simply a manifestation of their collective mental breakdown.
The interesting question is: what is the cure? All countries need a moderate centre-right, pro-business, pro-good governance party. Even England. How does the English nation regain such a party? Only one route is obvious: PR.
Over to you Mr Starmer: save the Conservative & Unionist Party, cos they ain’t gonna save themselves.
Brexit was a symptom, not a cause.
Economic globalisation has led to most people's living standards in the West stagnating, and they aren't happy about it. This has led to the collapse of the political centre in most countries, though this has been expressed in different ways. Brexit, and increased support for Scottish independence, were the particular manifestations in Britain.
This is seen in other European countries that use PR. The way to fix the issue is through the economic fundamentals. Improve people's living standards.
I think it may be beyond a governments control to improve economic living standards over the next decade from here. What we could improve in that timescale is their physical and mental health. Time for a health and well being party!
Good idea. A surefire vote magnet. Also focus on a more equal distribution of wealth. This will improve the living standards of most people (esp those in real need) and is a more realistic ambition for our politics than the fairytale notion of all problems solved and everything paid for by "growing the economy". What that phrase means, from either politician or pundit, is "Let's play pretend".
I don't think growth in the economy is impossible. If the left simply falls back on income/wealth distribution rather than a clear economic policy they are making a big mistake in my view. The model should be wealthy northern European countries, none of whom so far as I can tell have given up on growth.
The economy needs to - and will - grow. What I'm talking about is the tendency of politicians to pretend they can implement policies which will make a big difference in short order to how much it grows.
They can't and they know it. They make such promises because it sounds good and avoids saying unappealing truths which equally cynical opponents will exploit. In truth all they can do on the size of the economy - without the fictitious magic money tree - is impact it on the margins and over the long term, plus avoid doing actively damaging things like Brexit.
Where they really can have an impact is on the distribution of wealth. They can Level Up the many and Level Down the few, or they can do the opposite. So I'd like to hear more on this from both parties - solid practical proposals from Labour to reduce inequality and from the Tories to increase it - and less undeliverable anodyne win/win indistinguishable bullshit about "growing the economy".
But I suppose that's too much to ask and I'll just have to whistle.
I agree that radical changes in economic performance are pretty much impossible. Because they run up against existing interests.
But you can do some interesting things - what about 110% tax relief on investment in machinery and high quality training?
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Almost as if if you have to actually work with the bloke rather than just applaud and cheer from a distance you find out the reality.
Which is essentially the story - throughout his life, the people who got closest to him, at least in a professional context, ended up liking him the least. Many of them tried to warn the rest of us, but were ignored.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
He comes across as utterly detached from reality just like JRM but a different form of detachment, usually economic rather than social snobbery.
Yeah the idea that, in health care, the money should follow the patient.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
An acquaintance has a small property portfolio of business and office units. One guy has rented an industrial unit for 25 years, and is making noises about retiring. The acquaintance has given him a three month break from paying rent, as a) the guy's been a brilliant tenant, and b) he wants him to keep him as a tenant for as long as possible.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Almost as if if you have to actually work with the bloke rather than just applaud and cheer from a distance you find out the reality.
Which is essentially the story - throughout his life, the people who got closest to him, at least in a professional context, ended up liking him the least. Many of them tried to warn the rest of us, but were ignored.
Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him. - Max Hastings
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Property is on average around 5% of UK defined benefit pension fund assets (source: PPF purple book) and they will be perfectly aware that investments have downside risks. And that 5% investment will generally be a mix of office, retail and other properties, so even a big downturn will have a very limited impact on the overall fund.
So using that as a justification for not improving the quality of our high streets is pretty weak.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
And it took nearly 3 years to come to this stunning realisation? Johnson's inability to focus on anything other than himself was not exactly a secret and there were plenty of threads and posts here on PB saying what an atrocious leader he would make.
Fair point but many on the right just wanted brexit to be seen to be done, after remain had been seen off in a number of votes. The were rightly concerned the 17 million who voted for it wouldn't turn out again if it didn't get done.
Many didn't know or care what came with it. Many didn't read the small print. It turned out the small print said Net Zero hard target and Continuity Brown fiscal policy. And of course there was covid and Ukraine.
Well, Brexit is done and not many seem to like it whether they are Leavers or Remainers.
What will be the excuse for electing the vacuous Truss? I do not like Sunak much but he does come across as actually knowing things and doing detail. Ms Truss comes across as a frustrated fashion icon who is never happier than when a camera is pointing at her.
Our politicians are sleepwalking into a social explosion in the winter. Sunak is the status quo.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
Anyone needing continuity of care should really be receiving that from a specialist. The value of continuity of care for mental health issues, for example, is generally pretty bad from GPs. If you make GPs more of a triage service then there's no need to see a specific doctor.
This is wrong on many levels. Continuity of care is important. It is often not achieved in secondary/specialist care. The general trend has been to move more disease management out of secondary care and into GP practices.
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
I had no idea you were that old or that well connected!
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
And it took nearly 3 years to come to this stunning realisation? Johnson's inability to focus on anything other than himself was not exactly a secret and there were plenty of threads and posts here on PB saying what an atrocious leader he would make.
Fair point but many on the right just wanted brexit to be seen to be done, after remain had been seen off in a number of votes. The were rightly concerned the 17 million who voted for it wouldn't turn out again if it didn't get done.
Many didn't know or care what came with it. Many didn't read the small print. It turned out the small print said Net Zero hard target and Continuity Brown fiscal policy. And of course there was covid and Ukraine.
Well, Brexit is done and not many seem to like it whether they are Leavers or Remainers.
What will be the excuse for electing the vacuous Truss? I do not like Sunak much but he does come across as actually knowing things and doing detail. Ms Truss comes across as a frustrated fashion icon who is never happier than when a camera is pointing at her.
Our politicians are sleepwalking into a social explosion in the winter. Sunak is the status quo.
There was a really interesting discussion on this on R4 in the One O'clock news section.
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
Anyone needing continuity of care should really be receiving that from a specialist. The value of continuity of care for mental health issues, for example, is generally pretty bad from GPs. If you make GPs more of a triage service then there's no need to see a specific doctor.
This is wrong on many levels. Continuity of care is important. It is often not achieved in secondary/specialist care. The general trend has been to move more disease management out of secondary care and into GP practices.
Why are GPs so bad at it then?
Too many patients needing too much care. Plus it’s patchy, and community care is much more than GPs, it’s nurse practitioners, pharmacists etc
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
And it took nearly 3 years to come to this stunning realisation? Johnson's inability to focus on anything other than himself was not exactly a secret and there were plenty of threads and posts here on PB saying what an atrocious leader he would make.
Fair point but many on the right just wanted brexit to be seen to be done, after remain had been seen off in a number of votes. The were rightly concerned the 17 million who voted for it wouldn't turn out again if it didn't get done.
Many didn't know or care what came with it. Many didn't read the small print. It turned out the small print said Net Zero hard target and Continuity Brown fiscal policy. And of course there was covid and Ukraine.
Well, Brexit is done and not many seem to like it whether they are Leavers or Remainers.
What will be the excuse for electing the vacuous Truss? I do not like Sunak much but he does come across as actually knowing things and doing detail. Ms Truss comes across as a frustrated fashion icon who is never happier than when a camera is pointing at her.
Our politicians are sleepwalking into a social explosion in the winter. Sunak is the status quo.
And Liz Truss will save us because she is not the status quo? A person whose political CV appears to contain no achievements whatsoever?
She may have a certain entertainment value to those of us expecting her to fail to live up to our low expectations, but other than that I cannot see her premiership ending well.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
Ah sorry I got this wrong. what I meant was SIPPs can't invest in residential property; don't know about buying commercial and converting (which I would have thought was much harder than it sounds from both engineering and planning POV, give or take the odd windmill).
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Property is on average around 5% of UK defined benefit pension fund assets (source: PPF purple book) and they will be perfectly aware that investments have downside risks. And that 5% investment will generally be a mix of office, retail and other properties, so even a big downturn will have a very limited impact on the overall fund.
So using that as a justification for not improving the quality of our high streets is pretty weak.
It would be weak if that was the point I was making - I was merely pointing out that it’s not all rich foreigners owning high streets so not a “victimless crime” as there is an element of pension fund interest so if the sector collapses - even though it is 5% it still has a knock-on effect.
I am in no way justifying not improving the quality of high streets - from those I know they are pretty tragic at the moment and I hope that there is a way to wrestle them back from chains and charity shops.
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
I had no idea you were that old or that well connected!
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
Anyone needing continuity of care should really be receiving that from a specialist. The value of continuity of care for mental health issues, for example, is generally pretty bad from GPs. If you make GPs more of a triage service then there's no need to see a specific doctor.
This is wrong on many levels. Continuity of care is important. It is often not achieved in secondary/specialist care. The general trend has been to move more disease management out of secondary care and into GP practices.
Why are GPs so bad at it then?
I don't think they are, though undeniably some better than others. They also have the important role of linking specialists, who often work in silos and create problems that way.
The system of payments for GPs, so things like diabetes checks with an incentive payment are prioritised over work, but that is surely what the commissioners want.
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
I had no idea you were that old or that well connected!
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
And it took nearly 3 years to come to this stunning realisation? Johnson's inability to focus on anything other than himself was not exactly a secret and there were plenty of threads and posts here on PB saying what an atrocious leader he would make.
Fair point but many on the right just wanted brexit to be seen to be done, after remain had been seen off in a number of votes. The were rightly concerned the 17 million who voted for it wouldn't turn out again if it didn't get done.
Many didn't know or care what came with it. Many didn't read the small print. It turned out the small print said Net Zero hard target and Continuity Brown fiscal policy. And of course there was covid and Ukraine.
Well, Brexit is done and not many seem to like it whether they are Leavers or Remainers.
What will be the excuse for electing the vacuous Truss? I do not like Sunak much but he does come across as actually knowing things and doing detail. Ms Truss comes across as a frustrated fashion icon who is never happier than when a camera is pointing at her.
Our politicians are sleepwalking into a social explosion in the winter. Sunak is the status quo.
There was a really interesting discussion on this on R4 in the One O'clock news section.
What did they say then? :-) If "social explosion" means widespread unrest where people live, that's uncommon in winter. Strikes are a better bet. But the level of indoctrination in the era that began in 2020 is extreme. I heard one guy hating at railway workers, saying "they" "always" "take advantage" "at times like this" - wicked wicked people who knew there was a "cost of living crisis" and tried to benefit from it by putting the knife in against the public. You could just hear the phrase "COLC" bouncing around inside his empty skull. WTF does he think railway workers are angry about it if it's not in large part their cost of living?
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
Tragically Redwood shares with Andrea Leadsom the distinction of being a potential Tory saviour of the nation whose challenge just came at the wrong time.
If only they could have teamed up they would have been like Albert Einstein and Marie Curie rolled into one, and we should now be living in the New Jerusalem.
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
I had no idea you were that old or that well connected!
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
Ah sorry I got this wrong. what I meant was SIPPs can't invest in residential property; don't know about buying commercial and converting (which I would have thought was much harder than it sounds from both engineering and planning POV, give or take the odd windmill).
I think it is true about converting buildings. My Dad has a building with a shop he rents out downstairs, and his office is on top. There's also an empty office on the top floor that he used to rent out, but can't find a tenant for. He's about to retire and had considered converting the offices into what would be a really nice flat, to rent out and then downsize into later, but I think that the effective tax bill on it having to come out of his pension fund would have been too big to consider it.
I'm glad 56% think there should be an election. Seeing Tory members interviewed on TV, at least half still support Boris. I don't think the people choosing the next PM should be people who don't think there should be a change anyway...it's a mad situation.
I think that Brexit has quite literally driven Tories mad. They have lost their senses. Support for The Oaf is simply a manifestation of their collective mental breakdown.
The interesting question is: what is the cure? All countries need a moderate centre-right, pro-business, pro-good governance party. Even England. How does the English nation regain such a party? Only one route is obvious: PR.
Over to you Mr Starmer: save the Conservative & Unionist Party, cos they ain’t gonna save themselves.
Brexit was a symptom, not a cause.
Economic globalisation has led to most people's living standards in the West stagnating, and they aren't happy about it. This has led to the collapse of the political centre in most countries, though this has been expressed in different ways. Brexit, and increased support for Scottish independence, were the particular manifestations in Britain.
This is seen in other European countries that use PR. The way to fix the issue is through the economic fundamentals. Improve people's living standards.
I think it may be beyond a governments control to improve economic living standards over the next decade from here. What we could improve in that timescale is their physical and mental health. Time for a health and well being party!
Good idea. A surefire vote magnet. Also focus on a more equal distribution of wealth. This will improve the living standards of most people (esp those in real need) and is a more realistic ambition for our politics than the fairytale notion of all problems solved and everything paid for by "growing the economy". What that phrase means, from either politician or pundit, is "Let's play pretend".
I don't think growth in the economy is impossible. If the left simply falls back on income/wealth distribution rather than a clear economic policy they are making a big mistake in my view. The model should be wealthy northern European countries, none of whom so far as I can tell have given up on growth.
The economy needs to - and will - grow. What I'm talking about is the tendency of politicians to pretend they can implement policies which will make a big difference in short order to how much it grows.
They can't and they know it. They make such promises because it sounds good and avoids saying unappealing truths which equally cynical opponents will exploit. In truth all they can do on the size of the economy - without the fictitious magic money tree - is impact it on the margins and over the long term, plus avoid doing actively damaging things like Brexit.
Where they really can have an impact is on the distribution of wealth. They can Level Up the many and Level Down the few, or they can do the opposite. So I'd like to hear more on this from both parties - solid practical proposals from Labour to reduce inequality and from the Tories to increase it - and less undeliverable anodyne win/win indistinguishable bullshit about "growing the economy".
But I suppose that's too much to ask and I'll just have to whistle.
I agree that radical changes in economic performance are pretty much impossible. Because they run up against existing interests.
But you can do some interesting things - what about 110% tax relief on investment in machinery and high quality training?
Under Sunaks current capital allowances system it is 125%.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
Ah sorry I got this wrong. what I meant was SIPPs can't invest in residential property; don't know about buying commercial and converting (which I would have thought was much harder than it sounds from both engineering and planning POV, give or take the odd windmill).
I think it is true about converting buildings. My Dad has a building with a shop he rents out downstairs, and his office is on top. There's also an empty office on the top floor that he used to rent out, but can't find a tenant for. He's about to retire and had considered converting the offices into what would be a really nice flat, to rent out and then downsize into later, but I think that the effective tax bill on it having to come out of his pension fund would have been too big to consider it.
Oh, and to those who replied to me yesterday about my Dad; he's not at all likely to become a lady. I was being a bit silly, and your thoughtful replies were far more than my flippancy deserved.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
What it's been for forever, as a valuable community meeting place and trading and commercial hub. It's fashionable to believe that the internet has made it obsolete, but I think it's more that ridiculous rents have destroyed it.
Action needs to be taken on landlords who keep stores empty and whose buildings are dilapidated. Anything unsightly needs to be fined, till these buildings become too hot to hold and are sold, or tenants found at more reasonable rents. Then the High Street is viable. Shops in scruffy high streets in Scotland are looking for £30,000 a year in rent. How much do you have to sell to take that kind of hit?
The "the Internet" (and more to the point supermarkets and large stores) have massively reduced the value of the High Street shops. The banks and landlords can't admit that commercial property of this type had collapsed, and neither can the councils.
When they embrace it, a new generation of individual shopkeepers can flood in and really revive the High Street. Which will be great.
I sold a small shop in a tertiary location out of my mum's estate recently. Achieved 25-30% more than expected at auction.
A Kansas sheriff reportedly lied when he said his office “has received more than 200 tips” from people claiming 2020 election fraud. In response to a public records request, the office could only produce ONE offense since 2020. Whoops. https://mobile.twitter.com/BrianKarem/status/1553114872157806596
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
It would make people wealthy enough to have SiPPs more wealthy
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
Ah sorry I got this wrong. what I meant was SIPPs can't invest in residential property; don't know about buying commercial and converting (which I would have thought was much harder than it sounds from both engineering and planning POV, give or take the odd windmill).
I think it is true about converting buildings. My Dad has a building with a shop he rents out downstairs, and his office is on top. There's also an empty office on the top floor that he used to rent out, but can't find a tenant for. He's about to retire and had considered converting the offices into what would be a really nice flat, to rent out and then downsize into later, but I think that the effective tax bill on it having to come out of his pension fund would have been too big to consider it.
Converting a small shop is straighforward; now often under permitted development perhaps with restrictions on the appearance.
One wrinkle is that a mixed development will be difficult for a normal mortgage, so it could require a cash investment or expensive borrowing.
But smallish mixed developments - eg convenience store with flats over - have been a sweetspot in yield terms for perhaps a decade and a half.
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
I had no idea you were that old or that well connected!
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
Tragically Redwood shares with Andrea Leadsom the distinction of being a potential Tory saviour of the nation whose challenge just came at the wrong time.
If only they could have teamed up they would have been like Albert Einstein and Marie Curie rolled into one, and we should now be living in the New Jerusalem.
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
I had no idea you were that old or that well connected!
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
I had no idea you were that old or that well connected!
Or alternatively, he’s off his head?
That attempt was below Parr.
How ward you define Parr for his puns? Surely you would have to Seymour of his efforts?
I'm glad 56% think there should be an election. Seeing Tory members interviewed on TV, at least half still support Boris. I don't think the people choosing the next PM should be people who don't think there should be a change anyway...it's a mad situation.
I think that Brexit has quite literally driven Tories mad. They have lost their senses. Support for The Oaf is simply a manifestation of their collective mental breakdown.
The interesting question is: what is the cure? All countries need a moderate centre-right, pro-business, pro-good governance party. Even England. How does the English nation regain such a party? Only one route is obvious: PR.
Over to you Mr Starmer: save the Conservative & Unionist Party, cos they ain’t gonna save themselves.
Brexit was a symptom, not a cause.
Economic globalisation has led to most people's living standards in the West stagnating, and they aren't happy about it. This has led to the collapse of the political centre in most countries, though this has been expressed in different ways. Brexit, and increased support for Scottish independence, were the particular manifestations in Britain.
This is seen in other European countries that use PR. The way to fix the issue is through the economic fundamentals. Improve people's living standards.
I think it may be beyond a governments control to improve economic living standards over the next decade from here. What we could improve in that timescale is their physical and mental health. Time for a health and well being party!
Good idea. A surefire vote magnet. Also focus on a more equal distribution of wealth. This will improve the living standards of most people (esp those in real need) and is a more realistic ambition for our politics than the fairytale notion of all problems solved and everything paid for by "growing the economy". What that phrase means, from either politician or pundit, is "Let's play pretend".
I don't think growth in the economy is impossible. If the left simply falls back on income/wealth distribution rather than a clear economic policy they are making a big mistake in my view. The model should be wealthy northern European countries, none of whom so far as I can tell have given up on growth.
The economy needs to - and will - grow. What I'm talking about is the tendency of politicians to pretend they can implement policies which will make a big difference in short order to how much it grows.
They can't and they know it. They make such promises because it sounds good and avoids saying unappealing truths which equally cynical opponents will exploit. In truth all they can do on the size of the economy - without the fictitious magic money tree - is impact it on the margins and over the long term, plus avoid doing actively damaging things like Brexit.
Where they really can have an impact is on the distribution of wealth. They can Level Up the many and Level Down the few, or they can do the opposite. So I'd like to hear more on this from both parties - solid practical proposals from Labour to reduce inequality and from the Tories to increase it - and less undeliverable anodyne win/win indistinguishable bullshit about "growing the economy".
But I suppose that's too much to ask and I'll just have to whistle.
I agree that radical changes in economic performance are pretty much impossible. Because they run up against existing interests.
But you can do some interesting things - what about 110% tax relief on investment in machinery and high quality training?
Under Sunaks current capital allowances system it is 125%.
So they are being paid by the government to invest?
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
Ah sorry I got this wrong. what I meant was SIPPs can't invest in residential property; don't know about buying commercial and converting (which I would have thought was much harder than it sounds from both engineering and planning POV, give or take the odd windmill).
I think it is true about converting buildings. My Dad has a building with a shop he rents out downstairs, and his office is on top. There's also an empty office on the top floor that he used to rent out, but can't find a tenant for. He's about to retire and had considered converting the offices into what would be a really nice flat, to rent out and then downsize into later, but I think that the effective tax bill on it having to come out of his pension fund would have been too big to consider it.
Converting a small shop is straighforward; now often under permitted development perhaps with restrictions on the appearance.
One wrinkle is that a mixed development will be difficult for a normal mortgage, so it could require a cash investment or expensive borrowing.
But smallish mixed developments - eg convenience store with flats over - have been a sweetspot in yield terms for perhaps a decade and a half.
But on conversion to residential, does it have to be excluded from a SIPP?
The Duke of Rothesay making an absolute arse of himself. Again. His minders must be ripping their hair out.
What is the mechanism for skipping straight from Elisabeth to William? Can the Daftie be forced out?
There's no mechanism to skip a generation. If you don't want Charles the only way to avoid it is if we make Dame Judi Dench the next monarch by general acclamation. No need to be weird about it or anything, everybody has to just act like it's the normal thing that Queen Elizabeth is dead so now the new Queen is Queen Judi.
It's happened before. Complete with automatic transfer of Divine Right. Come to think of it, 'divine' is an appropriate term especially for Dame Judi!
Why not Claire Foy?
What if she governs as Anne Boleyn?
Anne Boleyn had her good points. For example, if I remember correctly she loved her brother.
Scurrilous rumour from Thomas Cromwell.
Well I have a distinct memory of Anne Boleyn acknowledging that she loved her brother.Though to be fair it may have been Dorothy Tutin rather than Claire Foy.
I had no idea you were that old or that well connected!
Or alternatively, he’s off his head?
That attempt was below Parr.
I need to sey mour evidence first.
Are you suggesting that my comment was born of Aragon's?
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
Tragically Redwood shares with Andrea Leadsom the distinction of being a potential Tory saviour of the nation whose challenge just came at the wrong time.
If only they could have teamed up they would have been like Albert Einstein and Marie Curie rolled into one, and we should now be living in the New Jerusalem.
Now is that satire or is it irony?
Seems like straightforward failure to produce a satisfactory answer to my question to me.
Redwood was a Minister - if he was an incompetent one, let's hear about it. The floor is open.
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
Anyone needing continuity of care should really be receiving that from a specialist. The value of continuity of care for mental health issues, for example, is generally pretty bad from GPs. If you make GPs more of a triage service then there's no need to see a specific doctor.
Aiui most of a GP's workload these days is managing chronic conditions. If so, we can't magic this caseload away by dumping it onto the hospital sector.
I'm glad 56% think there should be an election. Seeing Tory members interviewed on TV, at least half still support Boris. I don't think the people choosing the next PM should be people who don't think there should be a change anyway...it's a mad situation.
I think that Brexit has quite literally driven Tories mad. They have lost their senses. Support for The Oaf is simply a manifestation of their collective mental breakdown.
The interesting question is: what is the cure? All countries need a moderate centre-right, pro-business, pro-good governance party. Even England. How does the English nation regain such a party? Only one route is obvious: PR.
Over to you Mr Starmer: save the Conservative & Unionist Party, cos they ain’t gonna save themselves.
Brexit was a symptom, not a cause.
Economic globalisation has led to most people's living standards in the West stagnating, and they aren't happy about it. This has led to the collapse of the political centre in most countries, though this has been expressed in different ways. Brexit, and increased support for Scottish independence, were the particular manifestations in Britain.
This is seen in other European countries that use PR. The way to fix the issue is through the economic fundamentals. Improve people's living standards.
I think it may be beyond a governments control to improve economic living standards over the next decade from here. What we could improve in that timescale is their physical and mental health. Time for a health and well being party!
Good idea. A surefire vote magnet. Also focus on a more equal distribution of wealth. This will improve the living standards of most people (esp those in real need) and is a more realistic ambition for our politics than the fairytale notion of all problems solved and everything paid for by "growing the economy". What that phrase means, from either politician or pundit, is "Let's play pretend".
I don't think growth in the economy is impossible. If the left simply falls back on income/wealth distribution rather than a clear economic policy they are making a big mistake in my view. The model should be wealthy northern European countries, none of whom so far as I can tell have given up on growth.
The economy needs to - and will - grow. What I'm talking about is the tendency of politicians to pretend they can implement policies which will make a big difference in short order to how much it grows.
They can't and they know it. They make such promises because it sounds good and avoids saying unappealing truths which equally cynical opponents will exploit. In truth all they can do on the size of the economy - without the fictitious magic money tree - is impact it on the margins and over the long term, plus avoid doing actively damaging things like Brexit.
Where they really can have an impact is on the distribution of wealth. They can Level Up the many and Level Down the few, or they can do the opposite. So I'd like to hear more on this from both parties - solid practical proposals from Labour to reduce inequality and from the Tories to increase it - and less undeliverable anodyne win/win indistinguishable bullshit about "growing the economy".
But I suppose that's too much to ask and I'll just have to whistle.
I agree that radical changes in economic performance are pretty much impossible. Because they run up against existing interests.
But you can do some interesting things - what about 110% tax relief on investment in machinery and high quality training?
Under Sunaks current capital allowances system it is 125%.
Rishi Sunak deserves some credit for increasing CT allowances for R&D and investment. As he says, the problem with simply cutting CT is you just boost bosses' pay packets because the promised investment or expansion rarely materialised.
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
I was suggesting something similar to a doctor friend - that in towns etc you have “super surgeries” with many GPs and you can choose a specific doctor which means you have to get an appointment or you can turn up and use a cab tank system.
The other benefit is obviously scale where if you have 25 GPs in one building then the cost of specialist equipment is spread and so gives the ability to have more technical equipment available.
I think that the best thing Boris has ever done is the way that he's enthused Ukrainians
He's been Zelensky's most reliable and steadfast ally from the very start, and the Ukrainians love him for it
His performances "training" the Ukrainian army (like in my pic) will be much mocked by his many opponents here. I expect that if they gave it some more thought, they'd realise the actual value of what he's doing. The morale boost for the troops that got to meet him, and for all those back in Ukraine seeing the footage of it, is a very good thing, whatever you think of Boris's motives
I hope PM Liz makes him Minister for Ukraine or something similar
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
I was suggesting something similar to a doctor friend - that in towns etc you have “super surgeries” with many GPs and you can choose a specific doctor which means you have to get an appointment or you can turn up and use a cab tank system.
The other benefit is obviously scale where if you have 25 GPs in one building then the cost of specialist equipment is spread and so gives the ability to have more technical equipment available.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
Ah sorry I got this wrong. what I meant was SIPPs can't invest in residential property; don't know about buying commercial and converting (which I would have thought was much harder than it sounds from both engineering and planning POV, give or take the odd windmill).
I think it is true about converting buildings. My Dad has a building with a shop he rents out downstairs, and his office is on top. There's also an empty office on the top floor that he used to rent out, but can't find a tenant for. He's about to retire and had considered converting the offices into what would be a really nice flat, to rent out and then downsize into later, but I think that the effective tax bill on it having to come out of his pension fund would have been too big to consider it.
Converting a small shop is straighforward; now often under permitted development perhaps with restrictions on the appearance.
One wrinkle is that a mixed development will be difficult for a normal mortgage, so it could require a cash investment or expensive borrowing.
But smallish mixed developments - eg convenience store with flats over - have been a sweetspot in yield terms for perhaps a decade and a half.
But on conversion to residential, does it have to be excluded from a SIPP?
I suspect we are hyperbolising the threat of this coming winter (yes, I know, I'm not personally averse to hyperbole, usually)
Are we really going to see civil unrest over energy prices? Really?
Strikes me the British way is to grumble not riot. It will be like a winter from the 1970s, cold and grey and grim, but still nowhere near as bad as the winter lockdowns, so we will cope quite well. At least the pubs will be open so we can have a cheap pint of ersatz "lager" with a malnourished friend
I make this prediction confidently, as someone who fully expects to spend a large chunk of the winter in Bangkok
The UK is relatively well-placed compared to many other countries, so I expect the situation to be worse elsewhere.
We'll see if the payment strike gathers momentum. Politically that could make the situation very difficult for the government, particularly if it led to further collapses among the retail energy companies.
It would lead to a very rapid loss of sympathy from those who do pay to those who don't.
This Energy Payment Strike has an Extinction Rebellion feel to it.
A core group of activists trying to get third parties to wreck their lives for the political benefit of the core group.
I don't think it will go anywhere, except for bizarre stories, and some poverty-porn which may be accurate or fabricated, in a couple of newspapers, written by people who can afford to pay their bills.
I'm also with Leon on this, the UK is relatively well-positioned. One of the things that is different for the UK is relatively how little energy we use compared to other countries, which is a significant cushion.
I am pretty sure this chart includes industrial usage so our low usage reflects our relatively small heavy industrial sector. Countries like Germany or Sweden which have large steel and other energy intensive sectors have higher per capita energy consumption. It doesn't mean that UK households are less exposed than those elsewhere. In fact, given we have a cold climate and poorly insulated homes I would guess we are pretty much bang in the crosshairs of this crisis.
I'm glad 56% think there should be an election. Seeing Tory members interviewed on TV, at least half still support Boris. I don't think the people choosing the next PM should be people who don't think there should be a change anyway...it's a mad situation.
I think that Brexit has quite literally driven Tories mad. They have lost their senses. Support for The Oaf is simply a manifestation of their collective mental breakdown.
The interesting question is: what is the cure? All countries need a moderate centre-right, pro-business, pro-good governance party. Even England. How does the English nation regain such a party? Only one route is obvious: PR.
Over to you Mr Starmer: save the Conservative & Unionist Party, cos they ain’t gonna save themselves.
Brexit was a symptom, not a cause.
Economic globalisation has led to most people's living standards in the West stagnating, and they aren't happy about it. This has led to the collapse of the political centre in most countries, though this has been expressed in different ways. Brexit, and increased support for Scottish independence, were the particular manifestations in Britain.
This is seen in other European countries that use PR. The way to fix the issue is through the economic fundamentals. Improve people's living standards.
I think it may be beyond a governments control to improve economic living standards over the next decade from here. What we could improve in that timescale is their physical and mental health. Time for a health and well being party!
Good idea. A surefire vote magnet. Also focus on a more equal distribution of wealth. This will improve the living standards of most people (esp those in real need) and is a more realistic ambition for our politics than the fairytale notion of all problems solved and everything paid for by "growing the economy". What that phrase means, from either politician or pundit, is "Let's play pretend".
I don't think growth in the economy is impossible. If the left simply falls back on income/wealth distribution rather than a clear economic policy they are making a big mistake in my view. The model should be wealthy northern European countries, none of whom so far as I can tell have given up on growth.
The economy needs to - and will - grow. What I'm talking about is the tendency of politicians to pretend they can implement policies which will make a big difference in short order to how much it grows.
They can't and they know it. They make such promises because it sounds good and avoids saying unappealing truths which equally cynical opponents will exploit. In truth all they can do on the size of the economy - without the fictitious magic money tree - is impact it on the margins and over the long term, plus avoid doing actively damaging things like Brexit.
Where they really can have an impact is on the distribution of wealth. They can Level Up the many and Level Down the few, or they can do the opposite. So I'd like to hear more on this from both parties - solid practical proposals from Labour to reduce inequality and from the Tories to increase it - and less undeliverable anodyne win/win indistinguishable bullshit about "growing the economy".
But I suppose that's too much to ask and I'll just have to whistle.
I agree that radical changes in economic performance are pretty much impossible. Because they run up against existing interests.
But you can do some interesting things - what about 110% tax relief on investment in machinery and high quality training?
Under Sunaks current capital allowances system it is 125%.
So they are being paid by the government to invest?
Yes, it is called a super deduction. My mistake, it is 130%:
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
An escalating tax on empty or infrequently used commercial and residential properties more generally would be a good way to improve the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Empty properties have a negative externality on wider society and should be taxed accordingly.
Not sure about residential - nothing would ever get built. Maybe an exemption for new properties?
From actually talking to GPs - the problem occurs when someone has a complicated issue.
So you can either have slots sized for 90% of the time when it is a quick in and out, or have slots sized for the one where someone walks in with skin cancer.
If you have the later, you are seeing about 4 people a day, max.
You can’t bring forward appointments, only delay them.
It’s an interesting problem in queuing theory.
Isn't the standard solution for this "have a single queue for multiple checkouts" ? I guess most people don't care which doctor they see, so instead of booking an appointment with a specific doctor, make the default be 'no preference'. Then you can have the three doctors on duty see the next patient in the queue, and even if one gets behind with a needs-a-long-consultation patient the other two probably haven't and so the queue doesn't get too far behind schedule. You'd need a mechanism for handling the patients who really do need to see a specific doctor because they have an ongoing problem that benefits from the continuity-of-care, of course.
I was suggesting something similar to a doctor friend - that in towns etc you have “super surgeries” with many GPs and you can choose a specific doctor which means you have to get an appointment or you can turn up and use a cab tank system.
The other benefit is obviously scale where if you have 25 GPs in one building then the cost of specialist equipment is spread and so gives the ability to have more technical equipment available.
Are you reinventing New Labour's polyclinics?
The trend in General Practice is "super-practices" composed of multiple mergers of practices, and with salaried GPs rather than the traditional partnership. One near me is several hundred doctors, working over multiple sites.
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
That tiny number of properties would have a negligible effect imo. There are bigger fish.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
Redwood is certainly not stupid. He has a DPhil and was a fellow of All Souls Oxford. However in the media and often in person, he is graceless and charmless. He is almost the anti Johnson. Even if you agree with him, you still, definitely would *not* want to go for a drink with him. He is personally cold and so fanatical and one eyed in his views, that he is a bore of the first water. He reminds me a great deal of Enoch Powell, another brilliant scholar who was really temprementally unsuited to be a successful politician.
I suspect we are hyperbolising the threat of this coming winter (yes, I know, I'm not personally averse to hyperbole, usually)
Are we really going to see civil unrest over energy prices? Really?
Strikes me the British way is to grumble not riot. It will be like a winter from the 1970s, cold and grey and grim, but still nowhere near as bad as the winter lockdowns, so we will cope quite well. At least the pubs will be open so we can have a cheap pint of ersatz "lager" with a malnourished friend
I make this prediction confidently, as someone who fully expects to spend a large chunk of the winter in Bangkok
The UK is relatively well-placed compared to many other countries, so I expect the situation to be worse elsewhere.
We'll see if the payment strike gathers momentum. Politically that could make the situation very difficult for the government, particularly if it led to further collapses among the retail energy companies.
It would lead to a very rapid loss of sympathy from those who do pay to those who don't.
This Energy Payment Strike has an Extinction Rebellion feel to it.
A core group of activists trying to get third parties to wreck their lives for the political benefit of the core group.
I don't think it will go anywhere, except for bizarre stories, and some poverty-porn which may be accurate or fabricated, in a couple of newspapers, written by people who can afford to pay their bills.
I'm also with Leon on this, the UK is relatively well-positioned. One of the things that is different for the UK is relatively how little energy we use compared to other countries, which is a significant cushion.
I am pretty sure this chart includes industrial usage so our low usage reflects our relatively small heavy industrial sector. Countries like Germany or Sweden which have large steel and other energy intensive sectors have higher per capita energy consumption. It doesn't mean that UK households are less exposed than those elsewhere. In fact, given we have a cold climate and poorly insulated homes I would guess we are pretty much bang in the crosshairs of this crisis.
I think that the best thing Boris has ever done is the way that he's enthused Ukrainians
He's been Zelensky's most reliable and steadfast ally from the very start, and the Ukrainians love him for it
His performances "training" the Ukrainian army (like in my pic) will be much mocked by his many opponents here. I expect that if they gave it some more thought, they'd realise the actual value of what he's doing. The morale boost for the troops that got to meet him, and for all those back in Ukraine seeing the footage of it, is a very good thing, whatever you think of Boris's motives
I hope PM Liz makes him Minister for Ukraine or something similar
Why does every Tory leadership contest require the same weak-ass policy ideas to be trotted out, like fines for missing GP appointments? I’ve been hearing proposals like this for at least a decade. The fact they never actually happen suggests maybe they’re not that good an idea?
Save the highstreet is particularly laughable. The Tories are completely out of ideas. And before anyone thinks "it's Labour's turn now" they are just as bad. Keir's guff about productivity the other day wasn't much better.
What we need is a complete rebuilding of the political classes, none of them are fit for purpose.
We need PR
That wouldn't help, we'd have the same fools stitching things up after the election itself.
Actually saving the High Street would be great. It's whether we actually get policies to do that that's the question.
First question - why save the high street? What’s it for?
I’m intending opening a business in the next couple of months and my very incomplete survey of retail in cities is that ‘the’ high streets of cities are very often on their arses (eg Edinburgh & Princes St, Aberdeen & Union St, Glasgow & Sauchiehall St), but that the villages within cities are doing a roaring trade. There seems to be a symbiosis between food, drink, coffee and niche traders that so far works, or so the somewhat shrivelled optimist in me hopes.
I think again, that's down to rent. In my parents small town, the High Street is suffering the usual malaise, but the 'off' High Street is supporting gift shops, jewellery shops, pet shops, record shops, electrical and hifi shops, a hardware shop, a wholefoods shop - all individually owned (or potentially by companies with a couple of stores). The only difference I can identify is that the High Street shops carry absurd rents.
I shudder to think what's going to happen to commercial property prices...or what's being done to prop them up...
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
I am sorry but I think of that sector crashing as a bit of a victimless crime. These are usually wealthy landlords with big property portfolios (or they wouldn't be able to have so much stock sitting empty). There is no way that they should be allowed to let their properties sit empty and dilapidated. Make them gloss the frontages, remove the weeds, replaster and repaint the walls, or fine them until the pips squeak. At the very least we'll get smarter high streets.
A lot of UK commercial property is owned by pension funds as in the past it provided a strong and steady return with additional secure assets so not really a victimless crime when people’s pensions are being affected.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
Isn't there a rule for commercial property in pension funds, that it can't be converted into residential property (or not without massive tax disadvantages)?
True for SIPPs, dunno about proper funds
What would be the disadvantage(s) of removing that rule on SIPPs?
House price inflation, I imagine.
Wouldn't it mean that more commercial properties got converted to residential properties, so increasing supply and easing house price inflation?
That tiny number of properties would have a negligible effect imo. There are bigger fish.
There are such a tiny number of properties to rent that a tiny increase could double the number available
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
Redwood is certainly not stupid. He has a DPhil and was a fellow of All Souls Oxford. However in the media and often in person, he is graceless and charmless. He is almost the anti Johnson. Even if you agree with him, you still, definitely would *not* want to go for a drink with him. He is personally cold and so fanatical and one eyed in his views, that he is a bore of the first water. He reminds me a great deal of Enoch Powell, another brilliant scholar who was really temprementally unsuited to be a successful politician.
Redwood is the most cold and charmless politician I have ever met.
He may still be popular with the members, but couldn’t command his own Cabinet, which is fatal for a PM.
Johnson could have realised that the country faced huge and mounting problems and at least started to address them.
He could have fired Sunak and appointed a tax cutting chancellor. He himself could have brought in Redwood to advise or anybody else he fancied. He could have reshuffled any number of cabinet members and appointed rising stars like Badenoch. He could have adopted some of the fresh ideas that have surfaced since his departure.
He wasn't interested. He isn't interested. He was and is obsessed with himself and his own power, leadership and legacy. The party needed to at least start to address some of the enormous problems building up in Britain or lose. Johnson either couldn't or wouldn't do that. He thought himself above it all. That's why he was fired.
Agreed. I was never his biggest fan, despite my many defences of his government on this forum. I mentioned it on the day he was elected. He was elected to do a specific job, which he did two years ago, and since then has been treading water while having to deal with a pandemic.
He didn't bring in Redwood, that must count in his favour.
I am interested to hear if you have anything against Redwood's competence as a Minister, his televised failure to sing the Welsh national anthem aside. I was too young to remember it much.
Redwood presents as a cartoon classic nasty Tory, therefore he must be stupid and malign to a certain section of the politically active public. In reality he is almost certainly none of those things.
Redwood is certainly not stupid. He has a DPhil and was a fellow of All Souls Oxford. However in the media and often in person, he is graceless and charmless. He is almost the anti Johnson. Even if you agree with him, you still, definitely would *not* want to go for a drink with him. He is personally cold and so fanatical and one eyed in his views, that he is a bore of the first water. He reminds me a great deal of Enoch Powell, another brilliant scholar who was really temprementally unsuited to be a successful politician.
He does interact with those BTL on his blog, to his credit, even when they are doing a bit of light trolling.
I think that the best thing Boris has ever done is the way that he's enthused Ukrainians
He's been Zelensky's most reliable and steadfast ally from the very start, and the Ukrainians love him for it
His performances "training" the Ukrainian army (like in my pic) will be much mocked by his many opponents here. I expect that if they gave it some more thought, they'd realise the actual value of what he's doing. The morale boost for the troops that got to meet him, and for all those back in Ukraine seeing the footage of it, is a very good thing, whatever you think of Boris's motives
I hope PM Liz makes him Minister for Ukraine or something similar
Surely his ability to enthuse the Ukrainian forces should be directed where it will be most immediately effective - right on the front line, wherever the fighting is at its fiercest. Anyone truly committed to the Ukrainian cause wouldn't have it any other way.
I'm glad 56% think there should be an election. Seeing Tory members interviewed on TV, at least half still support Boris. I don't think the people choosing the next PM should be people who don't think there should be a change anyway...it's a mad situation.
I think that Brexit has quite literally driven Tories mad. They have lost their senses. Support for The Oaf is simply a manifestation of their collective mental breakdown.
The interesting question is: what is the cure? All countries need a moderate centre-right, pro-business, pro-good governance party. Even England. How does the English nation regain such a party? Only one route is obvious: PR.
Over to you Mr Starmer: save the Conservative & Unionist Party, cos they ain’t gonna save themselves.
Brexit was a symptom, not a cause.
Economic globalisation has led to most people's living standards in the West stagnating, and they aren't happy about it. This has led to the collapse of the political centre in most countries, though this has been expressed in different ways. Brexit, and increased support for Scottish independence, were the particular manifestations in Britain.
This is seen in other European countries that use PR. The way to fix the issue is through the economic fundamentals. Improve people's living standards.
I think it may be beyond a governments control to improve economic living standards over the next decade from here. What we could improve in that timescale is their physical and mental health. Time for a health and well being party!
Good idea. A surefire vote magnet. Also focus on a more equal distribution of wealth. This will improve the living standards of most people (esp those in real need) and is a more realistic ambition for our politics than the fairytale notion of all problems solved and everything paid for by "growing the economy". What that phrase means, from either politician or pundit, is "Let's play pretend".
I don't think growth in the economy is impossible. If the left simply falls back on income/wealth distribution rather than a clear economic policy they are making a big mistake in my view. The model should be wealthy northern European countries, none of whom so far as I can tell have given up on growth.
The economy needs to - and will - grow. What I'm talking about is the tendency of politicians to pretend they can implement policies which will make a big difference in short order to how much it grows.
They can't and they know it. They make such promises because it sounds good and avoids saying unappealing truths which equally cynical opponents will exploit. In truth all they can do on the size of the economy - without the fictitious magic money tree - is impact it on the margins and over the long term, plus avoid doing actively damaging things like Brexit.
Where they really can have an impact is on the distribution of wealth. They can Level Up the many and Level Down the few, or they can do the opposite. So I'd like to hear more on this from both parties - solid practical proposals from Labour to reduce inequality and from the Tories to increase it - and less undeliverable anodyne win/win indistinguishable bullshit about "growing the economy".
But I suppose that's too much to ask and I'll just have to whistle.
I agree that radical changes in economic performance are pretty much impossible. Because they run up against existing interests.
But you can do some interesting things - what about 110% tax relief on investment in machinery and high quality training?
Good examples. Let's have lots of micro-improvements which don't excite but together make a difference.
You have to be careful with tax breaks though. They can complicate and be fiddled sometimes.
Comments
They can't and they know it. They make such promises because it sounds good and avoids saying unappealing truths which equally cynical opponents will exploit. In truth all they can do on the size of the economy - without the fictitious magic money tree - is impact it on the margins and over the long term, plus avoid doing actively damaging things like Brexit.
Where they really can have an impact is on the distribution of wealth. They can Level Up the many and Level Down the few, or they can do the opposite. So I'd like to hear more on this from both parties - solid practical proposals from Labour to reduce inequality and from the Tories to increase it - and less undeliverable anodyne win/win indistinguishable bullshit about "growing the economy".
But I suppose that's too much to ask and I'll just have to whistle.
Seems England has a better claim than most.
Though as I never tire of pointing out, 'Football's Coming Home' referred to the tournament being in England, not any great expectation of winning the thing. It is, rather wonderfully one of the least optimistic England football songs ever written. It is all about faint hope despite repeated disappointment.
I guessed it was to do with big leaseholders or freeholders preferring to have some brightly coloured happy-looking shops open during business hours, even if they collect hardly any rent from them, rather than allow dozens and dozens of units on Britain's most famous shopping street to lay empty, in which case as well as having to pay for security they'd also take a knock from the drop in the amount of custom coming to the area generally as it falls down the drain.
In addition, the mayor and the GLA and even central government would probably rather Oxford Street looks open for business than have tumbleweed blowing all along it. You could imagine big articles in the foreign press complete with photos, saying look at what used to be "Europe's most popular shopping destination" now. Not good for the London brand. Not good for the British one either.
On the plus side, it's quite fun that nowadays in many of the shops on Oxford Street you can test your haggling skills.
Seems mad that this wasn't covered as part of the TCA.
https://thehardground.bandcamp.com/
http://www.thisishowwefly.net/
The other benefit is obviously scale where if you have 25 GPs in one building then the cost of specialist equipment is spread and so gives the ability to have more technical equipment available.
Still, in London it will mean less £ going to Russian oligarchs I suppose.
Many didn't know or care what came with it. Many didn't read the small print. It turned out the small print said Net Zero hard target and Continuity Brown fiscal policy. And of course there was covid and Ukraine.
Our surgery has introduced e-consulting, where an email is picked up fairly rapidly (same day) and action taken, whether that be prescriptions or arranging a phone call or in person appointment. Works well for us (tech happy middle aged couple), may not do so for aged patients such as my mother in law ‘who just wants to turn up and wait’.
In addition our surgery does run turn up and wait some evenings.
All in all there is a mix, and navigating it takes experience, but it can be bloody good. But it isn’t everywhere.
It’s not just Qataris and Russians - they are buying the prestige areas.
What will be the excuse for electing the vacuous Truss? I do not like Sunak much but he does come across as actually knowing things and doing detail. Ms Truss comes across as a frustrated fashion icon who is never happier than when a camera is pointing at her.
A core group of activists trying to get third parties to wreck their lives for the political benefit of the core group.
I don't think it will go anywhere, except for bizarre stories, and some poverty-porn which may be accurate or fabricated, in a couple of newspapers, written by people who can afford to pay their bills.
I'm also with Leon on this, the UK is relatively well-positioned. One of the things that is different for the UK is relatively how little energy we use compared to other countries, which is a significant cushion.
(If anyone has any other countries to add, please add them here:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&country=SWE~DNK~FRA~DEU~IRL~ITA~GBR~POL~PRT~ESP~European+Union+(27))
Suggesting there must be some mystery about why no one at all in his own Party has been able to spot his ministerial potential.
But you can do some interesting things - what about 110% tax relief on investment in machinery and high quality training?
Insanity!
So using that as a justification for not improving the quality of our high streets is pretty weak.
https://www.ppf.co.uk/sites/default/files/2021-12/PPF_PurpleBook_2021.pdf
She may have a certain entertainment value to those of us expecting her to fail to live up to our low expectations, but other than that I cannot see her premiership ending well.
I am in no way justifying not improving the quality of high streets - from those I know they are pretty tragic at the moment and I hope that there is a way to wrestle them back from chains and charity shops.
The system of payments for GPs, so things like diabetes checks with an incentive payment are prioritised over work, but that is surely what the commissioners want.
If only they could have teamed up they would have been like Albert Einstein and Marie Curie rolled into one, and we should now be living in the New Jerusalem.
£70k vs £55k
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrianKarem/status/1553114872157806596
One wrinkle is that a mixed development will be difficult for a normal mortgage, so it could require a cash investment or expensive borrowing.
But smallish mixed developments - eg convenience store with flats over - have been a sweetspot in yield terms for perhaps a decade and a half.
If true that’s lower than a snake’s belly.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EBHarrington/status/1553533320469905409
As a tax researcher, I was skeptical of rumors Trump buried his ex-wife in that sad little plot of dirt on his Bedminster, NJ golf course just for tax breaks.
So I checked the NJ tax code & folks...it's a trifecta of tax avoidance. Property, income & sales tax, all eliminated.
Redwood was a Minister - if he was an incompetent one, let's hear about it. The floor is open.
He's been Zelensky's most reliable and steadfast ally from the very start, and the Ukrainians love him for it
His performances "training" the Ukrainian army (like in my pic) will be much mocked by his many opponents here. I expect that if they gave it some more thought, they'd realise the actual value of what he's doing. The morale boost for the troops that got to meet him, and for all those back in Ukraine seeing the footage of it, is a very good thing, whatever you think of Boris's motives
I hope PM Liz makes him Minister for Ukraine or something similar
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/super-deduction
It was part of Sunak's Company tax reforms, so any company can dodge tax by investing in equipment, staff and research.
You have to be careful with tax breaks though. They can complicate and be fiddled sometimes.