LizT compared with others who’ve became PM mid-parliament – politicalbetting.com

System

LizT compared with others who’ve became PM mid-parliament – politicalbetting.com

One great thing about Ipsos which used to be MORI is that it has been polling in the UK since the 1970s and has massive historical database on which we can compare things

Read the full story here

Benpointer

First, unlike Truss.

MattW

Second. Just.

First off-topic.

Interesting that Germany is introducing a Green Card to try and pull in under 35, intelligent foreigners. To the possible tune of 100s of k of immigrants required per year.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-introduce-green-card-to-bolster-workforce/a-63046971

One problem is that Germany is perceived as bureaucratic and difficult.

williamglenn

Electorally speaking, Truss would rather be in the company of Johnson than May.

RobD

Given the electoral success of each of these I'm not sure this is a bad thing for Truss.

Benpointer

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

DavidL

So, Johnson got a majority of 80 and May lost hers. What exactly are we supposed to draw from this?

IshmaelZ

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

Benpointer

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

TimS

This only shows one side of the equation, which can be misleading. Best to look at the approval ratings vs the Labour opposition leader.

Boris had very low approval but so at the time did Corbyn, as he did when May took over. Brown had good ratings but at the time so, relatively, did Cameron.

Vs the opposition I think - though I don't have the numbers immediately to hand - Truss is probably in a similar position or slightly worse than Brown was when he took over from Blair. Similar amount of time for the party in office too - 12 years vs 10 years.

Fishing

MattW said:

Second. Just.

First off-topic.

Interesting that Germany is introducing a Green Card to try and pull in under 35, intelligent foreigners. To the possible tune of 100s of k of immigrants required per year.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-introduce-green-card-to-bolster-workforce/a-63046971

One problem is that Germany is perceived as bureaucratic and difficult.

I had a friend who had to deal with German bureaucrats professionally over many years and he said they always brought to mind the Vogons in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

To remind, the HGG described the Vogons as:

"one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy—not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous", and having "as much sex appeal as a road accident" as well as being the authors of "the third worst poetry in the universe""

squareroot2

It had to be bad news for the Tories, that's all one ever gets on here.

RobD

squareroot2 said:

It had to be bad news for the Tories, that's all one ever gets on here.

Four threads ago - "So far the polling's not looking bad for Liz"

IshmaelZ

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

Don't think so

Benpointer

Truss needs some kind of miracle sequence of events imo.

- Putin capitulates or is deposed.
- The replacement Russian leader begs forgiveness, gives up Ukraine territory and agrees reparations...
- ...leading to Russian sanctions being lifted, the energy market being freed up, and inflation falling rapidly.

Not impossible but very, very unlikely.

RobD

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

ydoethur

williamglenn said:

Electorally speaking, Truss would rather be in the company of Johnson than May.

Hmmm.

May and Major also won the next elections. Major with a vote that had UNS worked (which of course it always does) would have seen him secure a majority of 77.

Brown lost, very spectacularly. The lowest share of any vote of any governing party ever. Again, on UNS Labour would have been down to about 155 seats.

So actually, it doesn't show very much other than how much of a refreshing change or otherwise the new incumbent is seen as.

eek

DavidL said:

So, Johnson got a majority of 80 and May lost hers. What exactly are we supposed to draw from this?

That initial opinions of new PMs don't tally with subsequent election results and if you target your manifesto well enough even dire satisfaction ratings won't stop you winning an election

ydoethur

RobD said:

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

Because they're so comprehensively stuffed,

MISTY

Benpointer said:

Truss needs some kind of miracle sequence of events imo.

- Putin capitulates or is deposed.
- The replacement Russian leader begs forgiveness, gives up Ukraine territory and agrees reparations...
- ...leading to Russian sanctions being lifted, the energy market being freed up, and inflation falling rapidly.

Not impossible but very, very unlikely.

Its not Truss that needs that miracle, its us.

Liz will be fine....as will anybody who replaces her.

eek

RobD said:

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

Because Turkish economic policy is driven by a President who doesn't have the first clue about economics but still wants to win the next election by hook or by crook.

Scott_xP

NEW Starmer v Truss...his biggest lead is on being honest vs Truss. this is helpful, but a bigger lead on being capable would matter more.. https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1572986978848702464/photo/1

Benpointer

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

Don't think so

Microwaves are though! ;-)

Seriously though, there must be some VAT built into food prices... transport costs, packaging, marketing, etc.

Or is that not how VAT works?

NickyBreakspear

The dates for the Ipsos poll (via telephone) were 7th to 15th September, so mainly during the mourning period.

As LizT was eclipsed in the news, the poll may be impacted and comparisons with previous polls may not be appropriate.

RobD

ydoethur said:

RobD said:

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

Because they're so comprehensively stuffed,

You'd expect their central bankers to stay abreast of the situation, to be honest.

ydoethur

RobD said:

ydoethur said:

RobD said:

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

Because they're so comprehensively stuffed,

You'd expect their central bankers to stay abreast of the situation, to be honest.

The politicians have taken wing, and inflation is legging it out of sight.

NickyBreakspear

Given that the NIC news was released today, this suggests that the Chancellor would like attention focused on other measures tomorrow.

eek

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

Don't think so

Microwaves are though! ;-)

Seriously though, there must be some VAT built into food prices... transport costs, packaging, marketing, etc.

Or is that not how VAT works?

VAT is cut by 5% - it probably just delays / masks the next price rise by a couple of months.

ydoethur

NickyBreakspear said:

Given that the NIC news was released today, this suggests that the Chancellor would like attention focused on other measures tomorrow.

he's bringing back Imperial?😲

Sandpit

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

IIRC, only if purchased hot.

williamglenn

NickyBreakspear said:

Given that the NIC news was released today, this suggests that the Chancellor would like attention focused on other measures tomorrow.

Maybe he'll go one step further and abolish NI altogether.

Luckyguy1983

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

Don't think so

Microwaves are though! ;-)

Seriously though, there must be some VAT built into food prices... transport costs, packaging, marketing, etc.

Or is that not how VAT works?

You get the VAT back on marketing.

kle4

Funny chart, which eek points out does not relate well to election results. I do wonder if May would have been a decent PM in a more ordinary time, or if even without the Brexit conundrum she'd have seen a decline once truly tested.

Sandpit

Fishing said:

MattW said:

Second. Just.

First off-topic.

Interesting that Germany is introducing a Green Card to try and pull in under 35, intelligent foreigners. To the possible tune of 100s of k of immigrants required per year.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-introduce-green-card-to-bolster-workforce/a-63046971

One problem is that Germany is perceived as bureaucratic and difficult.

I had a friend who had to deal with German bureaucrats professionally over many years and he said they always brought to mind the Vogons in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

To remind, the HGG described the Vogons as:

"one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy—not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous", and having "as much sex appeal as a road accident" as well as being the authors of "the third worst poetry in the universe""

In my part of the world, most international companies employ a ‘local’, known as a PRO, whose entire job is engaging with the bureaucracy - from applying for visas and trade licences, to buying and registering cars, to bailing errant employees out of the nick if required!

Luckyguy1983

ydoethur said:

RobD said:

ydoethur said:

RobD said:

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

Because they're so comprehensively stuffed,

You'd expect their central bankers to stay abreast of the situation, to be honest.

The politicians have taken wing, and inflation is legging it out of sight.

Erdogan has sacked all the wise old sages and been left with a bunch of onions.

NickyBreakspear

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

Don't think so

Microwaves are though! ;-)

Seriously though, there must be some VAT built into food prices... transport costs, packaging, marketing, etc.

Or is that not how VAT works?

You get the VAT back on marketing.

If a company is making zero rated supplies (eg children's clothing) they are still able to recover the VAT charged to them on their inputs.

However, if a company is making exempt supplies (eg finance services) they are not able to recover the VAT charged to them on their inputs.

Broadly.

ydoethur

Somewhere @TSE is watching the t20 and muttering about dockside hookers.

Cyclefree

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

williamglenn

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

ydoethur

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

RobD said:

ydoethur said:

RobD said:

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

Because they're so comprehensively stuffed,

You'd expect their central bankers to stay abreast of the situation, to be honest.

The politicians have taken wing, and inflation is legging it out of sight.

Erdogan has sacked all the wise old sages and been left with a bunch of onions.

And an empty mint.

Driver

williamglenn said:

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

Can't think of any precedents for that going horribly wrong.

kle4

DavidL said:

So, Johnson got a majority of 80 and May lost hers. What exactly are we supposed to draw from this?

That it's possible to turn things around but you need luck of circumstances, an opponent to play the game you want, and personal appeal that is well targeted.

ydoethur

Driver said:

williamglenn said:

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

Can't think of any precedents for that going horribly wrong.

it worked fine for Nicholas II.

Right up until the moment he was overthrown and shot.

rottenborough

Burn.


Nick Macpherson
@nickmacpherson2
·
1h
Historically, the role of UK fiscal policy was to support monetary policy. Now it is to oppose monetary policy. Perhaps, that explains why the long term cost of borrowing has risen 94 basis points in just one month compared to 43 bp in the US. We are already paying the price.

Sandpit

williamglenn said:

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

LOL!

Does that mean if we can knock out enough generals, we might see Putin himself turn up within range of the HIMARS in Ukraine to direct the troops personally?

Benpointer

NickyBreakspear said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

Don't think so

Microwaves are though! ;-)

Seriously though, there must be some VAT built into food prices... transport costs, packaging, marketing, etc.

Or is that not how VAT works?

You get the VAT back on marketing.

If a company is making zero rated supplies (eg children's clothing) they are still able to recover the VAT charged to them on their inputs.

However, if a company is making exempt supplies (eg finance services) they are not able to recover the VAT charged to them on their inputs.

Broadly.

Thanks. Is food 'zero-rated supplies' or 'exempt supplies'?

SeaShantyIrish2

squareroot2 said:

It had to be bad news for the Tories, that's all one ever gets on here.

Bullshit. Or is it batshit?

Benpointer

williamglenn said:

NickyBreakspear said:

Given that the NIC news was released today, this suggests that the Chancellor would like attention focused on other measures tomorrow.

Maybe he'll go one step further and abolish NI altogether.

I'm not sure the DUP will like that tbh.

kle4

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

That is terrifying.

Maybe they could swap responsibilites and we'd see improvement?

ydoethur

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

squareroot2 said:

It had to be bad news for the Tories, that's all one ever gets on here.

Bullshit. Or is it batshit?

Kwarteng's whatever it isn't looks set to be a steaming pile of horse shit.

Stuartinromford

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

kle4

Driver said:

williamglenn said:

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

Can't think of any precedents for that going horribly wrong.

You'd think even autocrats would have some awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, if they cannot admit it publicly, but in practice they clearly do not.

ydoethur

That is why you need proper keepers, not batsmen masquerading as keepers.

Although that wouldn't explain Hales dropping one as easy as a DfE official after a works meeting.

Luckyguy1983

rottenborough said:

Burn.


Nick Macpherson
@nickmacpherson2
·
1h
Historically, the role of UK fiscal policy was to support monetary policy. Now it is to oppose monetary policy. Perhaps, that explains why the long term cost of borrowing has risen 94 basis points in just one month compared to 43 bp in the US. We are already paying the price.

It would certainly be an unusual turn of events if the last months' rises in the cost of borrowing were all down to policies that have not yet even been announced.

squareroot2

RobD said:

squareroot2 said:

It had to be bad news for the Tories, that's all one ever gets on here.

Four threads ago - "So far the polling's not looking bad for Liz"

It's never good. ......

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

1990s, surely?

Amazing stat from Alistair Darling - every building society that had converted to a bank was either nationalised or taken over by 2009.

Of course that was also true of some that hadn't, like the Portman and the Derbyshire. It very nearly became true of the Nationwide.

tlg86

TimS said:

This only shows one side of the equation, which can be misleading. Best to look at the approval ratings vs the Labour opposition leader.

Boris had very low approval but so at the time did Corbyn, as he did when May took over. Brown had good ratings but at the time so, relatively, did Cameron.

Vs the opposition I think - though I don't have the numbers immediately to hand - Truss is probably in a similar position or slightly worse than Brown was when he took over from Blair. Similar amount of time for the party in office too - 12 years vs 10 years.

Yep, oppositions win elections rather than governments losing them.

squareroot2

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

RobD said:

ydoethur said:

RobD said:

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

Because they're so comprehensively stuffed,

You'd expect their central bankers to stay abreast of the situation, to be honest.

The politicians have taken wing, and inflation is legging it out of sight.

Erdogan has sacked all the wise old sages and been left with a bunch of onions.

And an empty mint.

Onions are v good for blood pressure and aiui may be good 4 prostate issues?

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

That is why you need proper keepers, not batsmen masquerading as keepers.

Although that wouldn't explain Hales dropping one as easy as a DfE official after a works meeting.

There was me, half an hour ago, suggesting that 199 might be a decent score for England. Whoops.

Benpointer

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

NickyBreakspear

Food is either zero-rated or standard rated depending on what it is (see Jaffer Cakes, etc.)

Carnyx

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

Don't think so

No, see 2/5 of the way down.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-products-and-vat-notice-70114#general-food-products

SeaShantyIrish2

williamglenn said:

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

Putin thinks he's imitating his hero, Comrade Stalin. When he's actually channeling Czar Nicholas II.

Benpointer

squareroot2 said:

RobD said:

squareroot2 said:

It had to be bad news for the Tories, that's all one ever gets on here.

Four threads ago - "So far the polling's not looking bad for Liz"

It's never good. ......

Feel free to write a fantasy header.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

That is why you need proper keepers, not batsmen masquerading as keepers.

Although that wouldn't explain Hales dropping one as easy as a DfE official after a works meeting.

There was me, half an hour ago, suggesting that 199 might be a decent score for England. Whoops.

So @DavidL has lost his crown has he?

The question here is whether Pakistan can win by ten wickets or not.

Carnyx

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

Still feeling a bit sore about Santander after having to deal with them as an executor a decade ago. I do hope they have improved.

SeaShantyIrish2

ydoethur said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

squareroot2 said:

It had to be bad news for the Tories, that's all one ever gets on here.

Bullshit. Or is it batshit?

Kwarteng's whatever it isn't looks set to be a steaming pile of horse shit.

Was replying to squareroots constant grump that "all one ever gets on here" is bad news for Tories.

Which is demonstrably bullshit and/or batshit.

ydoethur

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

Putin thinks he's imitating his hero, Comrade Stalin. When he's actually channeling Czar Nicholas II.

it is grossly unfair to compare Putin to Czar Nicholas II.

Nicholas was a good husband.

dixiedean

kle4 said:

Funny chart, which eek points out does not relate well to election results. I do wonder if May would have been a decent PM in a more ordinary time, or if even without the Brexit conundrum she'd have seen a decline once truly tested.

Chucking away her majority destroyed her authority.
I think that would have happened whatever the situation.
It was calling the election then buggering it up. Amazed she lasted so long afterwards.

Stuartinromford

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

So, Johnson got a majority of 80 and May lost hers. What exactly are we supposed to draw from this?

That it's possible to turn things around but you need luck of circumstances, an opponent to play the game you want, and personal appeal that is well targeted.

And also an utterly brutal strategy of turning up the general level of political paranoia. Part of the deal in 2019 was "give Boris a big majority so that all of this will stop."

But the general principle is that it's really hard for a new PM to turn things round mid-term. Callaghan failed, Major just got over the line, Brown failed, May didn't really succeed, Johnson got a big win in strange circumstances. Overall, that makes sense, because PMs tend to only be thrown out mid-term if things are already going badly.

(One of BoJo's smart moves was to go fairly soon after taking office, before disillusionment sets in. Truss isn't going to be in a position to do that, is she?)

Nigel_Foremain

OT: Liz Truss. Slightly less shit than Johnson lol.

Actually I am beginning to quite like her.

Luckyguy1983

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

Putin thinks he's imitating his hero, Comrade Stalin. When he's actually channeling Czar Nicholas II.

Does Putin idolise Stalin? I've never actually watched a 'What makes Putin tick?' documentary. I know he was there when the GDR collapsed and that was formative.

SeaShantyIrish2

Luckyguy1983 said:

rottenborough said:

Burn.


Nick Macpherson
@nickmacpherson2
·
1h
Historically, the role of UK fiscal policy was to support monetary policy. Now it is to oppose monetary policy. Perhaps, that explains why the long term cost of borrowing has risen 94 basis points in just one month compared to 43 bp in the US. We are already paying the price.

It would certainly be an unusual turn of events if the last months' rises in the cost of borrowing were all down to policies that have not yet even been announced.

Weren't they being signaled, telegraphed, etc. for weeks throughout the Tory "leadership" contest?

kinabalu

eek said:

RobD said:

Does any one know why Turkey is lowering interest rates when they have 80% inflation?

Because Turkish economic policy is driven by a President who doesn't have the first clue about economics but still wants to win the next election by hook or by crook.

An accurate take on the situation here too. The Tories are trying to buy the next election and charge it to the future.

Cyclefree

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.

Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.

So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?

Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.

I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.

darkage

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

I had an account with Santander about 10 years ago, when I wasn't as sensible as I am now. It was one where they give you an opening bonus but there are penalties if you don't pay enough money in every month. I'd let the account go to zero and forgot about it, and then tried to close it, and they acted like total loan sharks, adding all sorts of inexplicable 'fees' to get out of the contract. I ended up having to go the branch, hand over a tenner or whatever thinking that was the end of it, then I would find out it wasn't, and would then need to go to ATM to take out another tenner and then join the back of the queue (full of people in similar situations), hand over the tenner to try and pay them off, and then I would find out a week or so later that it wasn't actually quite the end of it and they needed more money, so I would go back and hand over another tenner.

Benpointer

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bondegezou said:

Driver said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs

Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.

"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.

I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.

Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.

But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.

How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?

The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.

You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.

Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.

Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.

Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.

Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.

Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.

Re takeaways. I am amazed in my CAB dealings, how many people don't have any means to cook at all. People renting a room in a house (old-style bedsit). People avoiding homelessness by taking whatever they are offered, places that are often in a shocking state of disrepair.

Sure, a microwave can be picked up fairly cheaply but some people get into the cycle of takeaways.

Unless you have a certain amount of food prep and storage space, microwaving is basically just reheating takeaways

True. Are ready meals VATable?

Don't think so

No, see 2/5 of the way down.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-products-and-vat-notice-70114#general-food-products

Haha what a list!

I was intrigued to see that "Other types of snowballs such as Swedish snowballs with a longer shelf life" are standard rate. Presumably, only until they melt.

SeaShantyIrish2

So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?

(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)

Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/

TinkyWinky

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.

Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.

So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?

Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.

I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.

I spent a good 90 minute round trip to my local Santander a few months ago to do some admin. The branch had closed.

Be careful to check.

Cyclefree

Carnyx said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

Still feeling a bit sore about Santander after having to deal with them as an executor a decade ago. I do hope they have improved.

I can confidently say they have not. It is the worst service I have seen in banking. Utterly clueless.

RobD

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?

(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)

Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/

A loss for the NIMBYs?

Oh, no!... Anyway.

Benpointer

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Funny chart, which eek points out does not relate well to election results. I do wonder if May would have been a decent PM in a more ordinary time, or if even without the Brexit conundrum she'd have seen a decline once truly tested.

Chucking away her majority destroyed her authority.
I think that would have happened whatever the situation.
It was calling the election then buggering it up. Amazed she lasted so long afterwards.

Piss-poor management of Brexit did for her.

darkage

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.

Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.

So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?

Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.

I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.

Sorry about this. This is actually the same thing that I had 10 years ago, having to go in to a branch to close the account. It will be interesting if they demand the same of you as they did of me, ie that you go to the ATM to withdraw cash to pay off the mysterious 'fees'.

You would have thought things would have improved in the last 10 years.

Alphabet_Soup

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

@RALee85
"Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1572985692099317760

LOL!

Does that mean if we can knock out enough generals, we might see Putin himself turn up within range of the HIMARS in Ukraine to direct the troops personally?

A shell-shocked squaddie climbed out of his trench and ran away from the front. After a while he was intercepted by an officer. "Sorry, captain, just can't take it any more." "I'm not a captain, I'm a major." "Oh, must have run further than I thought."

Benpointer

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.

Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.

So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?

Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.

I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.

Bless. You think he will read it?

Sympathies for your hassle with Santander though.

ydoethur

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.

Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.

So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?

Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.

I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.

Virgin Money asked me for some information I didn't have and couldn't get.

I suggested a workaround and asked if it would meet their criteria.

They took two weeks to reply and then told me they couldn't give financial advice.

Which was (a) not what I had asked for and (b) not correct, because the whole point of a bank is to advise its clients.

The delay cost me about £100, and because I didn't have the time to complain I had to content myself with correcting the many errors of SPaG in their emails.

NickPalmer

NickyBreakspear said:

Food is either zero-rated or standard rated depending on what it is (see Jaffer Cakes, etc.)

Jaffa! (You must be one of them Russian trolls what Bart keeps finding.)

Luckyguy1983

...

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?

(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)

Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/

They have refused to confirm that there will be local referenda. That's not the same as saying there won't be local control.

SeaShantyIrish2

RobD said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?

(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)

Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/

A loss for the NIMBYs?

Oh, no!... Anyway.

Is it good policy and/or politics, for a politico to make promises they have zero intention of honoring?

As demonstrated by breaking 'em 15 minutes (metaphorically speaking) after making 'em?

Benpointer

TinkyWinky said:

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.

Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.

So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?

Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.

I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.

I spent a good 90 minute round trip to my local Santander a few months ago to do some admin. The branch had closed.

Be careful to check.

It might be their new customer retention plan: you have to go to a branch to close your account; all the branches are closed.

ydoethur

NickPalmer said:

NickyBreakspear said:

Food is either zero-rated or standard rated depending on what it is (see Jaffer Cakes, etc.)

Jaffa! (You must be one of them Russian trolls what Bart keeps finding.)

We could do with ten jaffas right now.

This pair are making it look easy.

Benpointer

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?

(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)

Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/

They have refused to confirm that there will be local referenda. That's not the same as saying there won't be local control.

Fracking is dead in the water in the UK.

HYUFD

All of the above new PMs took a clear poll lead too. Truss has not, even if she has gained a few votes from the LDs

RobD

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

RobD said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?

(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)

Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/

A loss for the NIMBYs?

Oh, no!... Anyway.

Is it good policy and/or politics, for a politico to make promises they have zero intention of honoring?

As demonstrated by breaking 'em 15 minutes (metaphorically speaking) after making 'em?

Not really, but I can't say I'm particularly upset. NIMBYism is responsible not only for the lack of development of renewables, but also the crippling housing situation.

SeaShantyIrish2

darkage said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

I had an account with Santander about 10 years ago, when I wasn't as sensible as I am now. It was one where they give you an opening bonus but there are penalties if you don't pay enough money in every month. I'd let the account go to zero and forgot about it, and then tried to close it, and they acted like total loan sharks, adding all sorts of inexplicable 'fees' to get out of the contract. I ended up having to go the branch, hand over a tenner or whatever thinking that was the end of it, then I would find out it wasn't, and would then need to go to ATM to take out another tenner and then join the back of the queue (full of people in similar situations), hand over the tenner to try and pay them off, and then I would find out a week or so later that it wasn't actually quite the end of it and they needed more money, so I would go back and hand over another tenner.

Should have gone back one last time, and thrown a brick through the front window. With 2p taped to it.

IshmaelZ

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.

Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.

So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?

Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.

I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.

Virgin Money asked me for some information I didn't have and couldn't get.

I suggested a workaround and asked if it would meet their criteria.

They took two weeks to reply and then told me they couldn't give financial advice.

Which was (a) not what I had asked for and (b) not correct, because the whole point of a bank is to advise its clients.

The delay cost me about £100, and because I didn't have the time to complain I had to content myself with correcting the many errors of SPaG in their emails.

Ask them for £100 comp, open a case with the ombudsman when they refuse

But banks aren't there to give financial advice, they are there to look after your money. They can have depts that can give FA but Virgin doesn't.

Benpointer

NickPalmer said:

NickyBreakspear said:

Food is either zero-rated or standard rated depending on what it is (see Jaffer Cakes, etc.)

Jaffa! (You must be one of them Russian trolls what Bart keeps finding.)

...one of those Russian trolls...

...was the way they taught me to write it at the Moscow language school.

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

Electorally speaking, Truss would rather be in the company of Johnson than May.

There's a similar phenomenon in the US: Presidents who performed really badly in their first midterms (W Bush, Obama, Clinton) won reelection, while those who performed well (Bush Sr for example) did not.

BartholomewRoberts

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

So the Prime Minister's "new' administration has already broken her first campaign promise, re: local control re: fracking?

(That is, first breaking of a campaign promise to be clear.)

Is this some kind of record re: interval between promising and breaking/

Has she? The promise was for local support for fracking, how local support would be measured was never explained. A token level of support would match the pledge.

Oh and f**k NIMBYs.

ydoethur

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

It's the 'triumph' of the market innit?

Triumph of the morons would be more accurate.

Apparently I have to go into a branch to close an account. It has taken 3 hours and 5 different departments to find out and give me this information.

So having wasted an afternoon I am going to have to waste tomorrow morning as well. What are the chances of this advice being correct?

Santander's CEO is going to get a letter from me which will make his ears burn from now until Xmas.

I mean it: until we focus on basic competence and customer service instead of grandiloquent bullshit we will get nowhere as a country.

Virgin Money asked me for some information I didn't have and couldn't get.

I suggested a workaround and asked if it would meet their criteria.

They took two weeks to reply and then told me they couldn't give financial advice.

Which was (a) not what I had asked for and (b) not correct, because the whole point of a bank is to advise its clients.

The delay cost me about £100, and because I didn't have the time to complain I had to content myself with correcting the many errors of SPaG in their emails.

Ask them for £100 comp, open a case with the ombudsman when they refuse

But banks aren't there to give financial advice, they are there to look after your money. They can have depts that can give FA but Virgin doesn't.

Why bother? The only time I ever went to the ombudsman was when a mortgage broker failing to submit a form on time by mistake and then repeatedly lying about it so nobody else could cost me £5,000.

Ombudsman's reply, roughly? 'Who cares?'

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

Cyclefree said:

Santander make the Metropolitan Police look competent.That is all.

Chorley Building Society on the other hand - absolute heroes. Answered the phone, gave me an answer, were pleasant and all in less than 5 minutes.

The trouble with this country is that we have too many Santanders in charge of stuff and too few Chorley Building Societies.

And we made it that way.

(OK, not current we, but 1980s we, who decided to go for freebie shares. The question that was barely asked was what was being given up in exchange for that windfall.)

1990s, surely?

Amazing stat from Alistair Darling - every building society that had converted to a bank was either nationalised or taken over by 2009.

Of course that was also true of some that hadn't, like the Portman and the Derbyshire. It very nearly became true of the Nationwide.

True too of RBS and Lloyds once it took over HBOS