Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A Tribute Act – politicalbetting.com

1810121314

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,965
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
    DCMS (or as a former colleague of mine used to call it "the department for fun")
  • https://twitter.com/edconwaysky/status/1576822189810147329

    Since the UK Government's actions don't impact the Pound, it was me having porridge this morning that caused this jump.

    I think you'll find jumps happen when markets open quite frequently on Monday mornings. Currencies bounce around.

    But if you want to think the £2bn on the 45p tax which has now been reversed was the only issue, then feel free to keep thinking that.
  • This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    Oh, I have no doubt I'm wealthy. It's more that the point about reversing the corporation tax increase may have more appeal than the "it's a sop to big business" line.

    Hope everything is good @Benpointer
    Yes all good thanks, hope it is with you too.

    Good to hear that you at least are going to benefit from these tax changes ;-)
    All good here thanks. I do miss that @MrEd chap though :)

    It does indeed but I am very fortunate. Plenty aren't and there needs to be more done there.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    Yes. Find another field, or buy it yourself if you don't want it developing.
    It's a new school - i.e. a project for the good of the community and you are upset by it?????

    I assume you meant to tag @Eabhal in that not me? I agree with your comment 100%
    Sorry I should have edited the quotes and hadn't - I've now fixed that...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,845
    It's easy to forget that, even as they finally get around to this belated u-turn, I did tip Perez to win at 23 a week or two before the race.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    The full - PAINFUL - bit, when Chris Philp realises No.10 and No.11 have briefed against him personally, as the architect of the top rate cut.

    - "You're not owning your mistake."
    - "I don't think that's accurate or fair."
    - "Why?"
    - "I don't accept your characterisation." ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1576854120903966721/video/1
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You implicitly would rather Truss over SKS if you won't vote for him.
    Devisive Factionalist Actions do have consequences.

    You are just annoyed SKS is 33 points ahead
    Is he last time I looked best PM was nowhere near that even against Robin
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
    DCMS (or as a former colleague of mine used to call it "the department for fun")
    So Tourism and our most unique and profitable industry (entertainment)...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    73% as of this month for me, was 42% before then.
    Other half moved in or a big pay rise ?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,700
    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    But schools need playing fields - it's like building a school without a science lab or library.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,684
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,700

    Alistair said:

    Also those hot takes on the terrible position Sturgeon found herself in after the special financial operation have aged well.

    I look forward to Scotland's leading celebrity QC making his pivot which will undoubtedly conclude with him being right all along.

    Edit: KC!
    Oh, is that the one who supports Rangers? Mr Findlay?
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    DavidL said:

    Well that Nick Robinson interview with the Chancellor (I assume that he still is, it was nearly an hour ago) was embarrassing. Made worse by Truss's comments yesterday morning of course. The combination of intellectual arrogance and blind stupidity is not endearing, is it?

    It certainly puts the tax on hot pasties into perspective. There is so much to do to try and restore credibility to this government again and they have barely started.

    They have barely started because they neither have a clue how to restore credibility nor any interest / desire in doing so..
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    73% as of this month for me, was 42% before then.
    Well done - have you just got a new job?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,003
    Ed Davey doesn’t look or sound well. 😕
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,389
    Every time I see the words "King Charles" my mind adds the word "Spaniel". Old habits die hard..... :D
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,965
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
    DCMS (or as a former colleague of mine used to call it "the department for fun")
    So Tourism and our most unique and profitable industry (entertainment)...
    Yeah...but those things are profitable without the government.
  • Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    But schools need playing fields - it's like building a school without a science lab or library.
    They do, but they're generally fenced off from the general public for pretty obvious safeguarding reasons, which is what it seems Eabhal is objecting to, the public loss of the field.

    Well yes, protesting that is wrong in my view.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,018

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Given that you never post on here other to have a rant against Sir Keir Starmer it's pretty obvious that you hate the Labour Party more.

    This must be a pretty difficult time for you right now.


  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all.

    I am in my post Labour phase.

    It's the future for proper Socialists
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,127
    Morning all.

    I've forgotten how to change the Avatar. It's time for Rowan Bear to be replaced by Little Miss Dotty.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    I think it's a combination of splitting the scheme up so literally every building firm you can think of (and many you've never heard of) are all building 100 or so houses max and similar games - the end result is the council has a pile of money but no actual infrastructure nor space to build anything...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,684

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    Correction - the section 106 will secure the funding but its up to the council to build.
  • Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all.

    I am in my post Labour phase.

    It's the future for proper Socialists
    Hopefully Labour move on to a post Socialism phase then.

    Its the future for proper governance.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039

    Every time I see the words "King Charles" my mind adds the word "Spaniel". Old habits die hard..... :D

    I suspect your brain will finally stop adding the word about a week before we get King William...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    Correction - the section 106 will secure the funding but its up to the council to build.
    Straight into the social care fund then.
  • Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    Also those hot takes on the terrible position Sturgeon found herself in after the special financial operation have aged well.

    I look forward to Scotland's leading celebrity QC making his pivot which will undoubtedly conclude with him being right all along.

    Edit: KC!
    Oh, is that the one who supports Rangers? Mr Findlay?
    Mr Dunlop


  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,127

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    Around here it is worked out on £X per extra required secondary place plus £Y per extra requried primary place, paid to the County Council. A well organised system.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,965
    eek said:

    Every time I see the words "King Charles" my mind adds the word "Spaniel". Old habits die hard..... :D

    I suspect your brain will finally stop adding the word about a week before we get King William...
    That's a pub in my mind.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    I think it's a combination of splitting the scheme up so literally every building firm you can think of (and many you've never heard of) are all building 100 or so houses max and similar games - the end result is the council has a pile of money but no actual infrastructure nor space to build anything...
    The money goes to the Council, the Council needs to build it.

    If the Council isn't doing so, then that's their responsibility. If they're blaming the developers, while pocketing the money, then that's almost corrupt.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,003

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of a 45 billion package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy on the back of this one..

    Well indeed, as I said last week politically and media management this has been utterly mishandled and is atrocious, but economically its different.

    The idea that a £2bn tax change was responsible for rational market movements last week was absurd and I said so all along.

    The Government is potentially having to borrow £150bn for energy support, which was called for by Labour, and £43bn per annum of alternative tax cuts which the Labour Party have said they'd keep too. Plus more importantly but completely missed by the media narrative, the Bank of England had said it would engage in £80bn in Quantitative Tightening, with more QT to come.

    The notion that the Gilt markets could bear the £150bn + £43bn + £80bn but the £2bn extra was economically flawed was just absurd. It always was.

    But the media narrative and public first impression is that is that everything is going to rich people.

    Every working person just got a 2.25% tax cut between NI and Income Tax, 3.5% if you include Employers NI as you should, and the Government is going to get no credit for that at all as the £2bn has overshadowed everything else.

    Ridiculous, just ridiculous.
    So what part of it moved the markets then? making our debt very very much more expensive
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    Did you or did you not support Corbyn's leadership?

    If so, you also own this mess, and you certainly could do with taking your own advice on self awareness.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    edited October 2022
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?

    It's a new school - i.e. a project for the good of the community and you are upset by it?????

    Of course - there is a massive great car park for a closed Tesco that would do the trick instead.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,607
    Scott_xP said:

    Kwarteng loses his rag with Nick Robinson after being told there is now a "Kwarteng premium" on people's mortgage rates: "What you are presenting is a complete distortion of reality."
    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1576834828984385541

    'The Kwarteng Premium'. A great slogan! At least he has the savvy to realise that soundbites like that stick. Which I imagine was why he was so cross.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,389
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
    I would not be surprised if they abolished Environment. Nor would I be surprised if they decided schools should be entirely self governed and dumped Education. Let people decide how they want to educate their kids.

    (BTW - I am not commenting on whether these changes make any sense. Supreme Leader Truss does not work on that basis)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408
    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    Every time I see the words "King Charles" my mind adds the word "Spaniel". Old habits die hard..... :D

    I suspect your brain will finally stop adding the word about a week before we get King William...
    That's a pub in my mind.
    His voice will be known as King William's Sound.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    edited October 2022

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    73% as of this month for me, was 42% before then.
    Well done - have you just got a new job?
    Started my solicitor training contract :)
    Nice one - well done. I seem to remember this is a 2nd career thing for you, have I got that right?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,901
    edited October 2022

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    You, like a few others, do seem stuck on Corbyn. A bit like someone going on about how great Blair was in 2016. They would have said what you just did.
  • This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of a 45 billion package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy on the back of this one..

    Well indeed, as I said last week politically and media management this has been utterly mishandled and is atrocious, but economically its different.

    The idea that a £2bn tax change was responsible for rational market movements last week was absurd and I said so all along.

    The Government is potentially having to borrow £150bn for energy support, which was called for by Labour, and £43bn per annum of alternative tax cuts which the Labour Party have said they'd keep too. Plus more importantly but completely missed by the media narrative, the Bank of England had said it would engage in £80bn in Quantitative Tightening, with more QT to come.

    The notion that the Gilt markets could bear the £150bn + £43bn + £80bn but the £2bn extra was economically flawed was just absurd. It always was.

    But the media narrative and public first impression is that is that everything is going to rich people.

    Every working person just got a 2.25% tax cut between NI and Income Tax, 3.5% if you include Employers NI as you should, and the Government is going to get no credit for that at all as the £2bn has overshadowed everything else.

    Ridiculous, just ridiculous.
    So what part of it moved the markets then? making our debt very very much more expensive
    All of it, its a big, complicated picture. There is no individual thing that you can point to and say "that alone".

    The markets had to move because they hadn't priced in the QT and the extent of debt enough. The markets are moving globally. The 45p was poor politics but not poor economics.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    Why did @KwasiKwarteng and @trussliz drop the abolition of the 45p top tax rate? Because super wealthy donors to the Tory party told them “we don’t need the money, we don’t want the money and you are bringing us into disrepute”. This is the highest political farce
    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1576855492382842880
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    edited October 2022
    At times KK sounded like Boris which I'm not sure is relevant to the price of anything.

    Other random observation: does Crystal Palace FC have the most diverse team (ie black players) in the premiership?

    It never ceases to make me happy, no doubt for highly illogical reasons, when I see, especially after a goal has been scored in the Premiership and no doubt the Championship and on down, the absolute colour-blindness of the players in their celebrations.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    You, like a few others, do seem stuck on Corbyn. A bit like someone going on about how great Blair was in 2016. They would have said what you just did.
    Blair is and was great, I said that even when I was singing Corbyn's theme. He won three elections.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,389
    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Kwarteng loses his rag with Nick Robinson after being told there is now a "Kwarteng premium" on people's mortgage rates: "What you are presenting is a complete distortion of reality."
    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1576834828984385541

    'The Kwarteng Premium'. A great slogan! At least he has the savvy to realise that soundbites like that stick. Which I imagine was why he was so cross.
    It sounds like a Robert Ludlum title :D
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278
    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    Every time I see the words "King Charles" my mind adds the word "Spaniel". Old habits die hard..... :D

    I suspect your brain will finally stop adding the word about a week before we get King William...
    That's a pub in my mind.
    That's my local. So thanks to you lot I am now going to think of the current king as a spaniel and the next one as a pub and I will get confused between IV and VI.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
    I would not be surprised if they abolished Environment. Nor would I be surprised if they decided schools should be entirely self governed and dumped Education. Let people decide how they want to educate their kids.

    (BTW - I am not commenting on whether these changes make any sense. Supreme Leader Truss does not work on that basis)
    Vouchers for schooling seems to me to be an extremely sensible way forward.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,792

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    The hard fact is that whenever your wing of the party is in the ascendent (be it Militant, Momentum or Corbynistas) you gift power to the Tories. You never, ever learn. This country is not going to elect a far left government, it's pure self-indulgence on your part.
  • eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    Correction - the section 106 will secure the funding but its up to the council to build.
    Indeed and this is the problem. It used to be that the Section 106 monies were ring fenced and often were held in escrow or similar until the required infrastructure was built. Then the rules were changed so the developer could just pay the money directly to the Council and they were supposed to use it for the infrastructure building but never did. It just got swalloed up into general spend. And nowadays the Section 106 payment is negotiable so the council and developer decide on a suitable amount of money to be paid with all the possibilities for deals etc which end up with the developer paying far less than is necessary for the required infrastructure. The whole system is a mess.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    But schools need playing fields - it's like building a school without a science lab or library.
    They do, but they're generally fenced off from the general public for pretty obvious safeguarding reasons, which is what it seems Eabhal is objecting to, the public loss of the field.

    Well yes, protesting that is wrong in my view.
    What's weird is that you think the very act of opposing it is wrong, not just that you think my position is wrong.

    That anyone with any contrary view, or insight that should be taken into account during the decision making process, should just shut up.

    All I've done is point out that there are two unused car parks in town that would work, and that the field has a value that is currently not recognised by the council.

    We see this at a national level too - Glen Etive being the best example. A unique national asset but because renewables trump everything else, all other factors automatically disregarded for a tiny benefit.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    You, like a few others, do seem stuck on Corbyn. A bit like someone going on about how great Blair was in 2016. They would have said what you just did.
    Or indeed the obverse - going on about Fatch.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    There’s a serious point to all this. My constituents will still face massive hikes in their mortgages, hundreds of products have been removed from the market. First time buyers frozen out and families facing hundreds of pounds in extra payments each month. The damage is done.
    https://twitter.com/CPJElmore/status/1576829416659120128
  • Another of the erstwhile Scotch tax exiles. God loves a trier..




  • felixfelix Posts: 14,490

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    73% as of this month for me, was 42% before then.
    Well done - have you just got a new job?
    Golly - I'm in the top 83% here in sunny Spain - and I'm just a struggling pensionista! :wink::blush::smiley:
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited October 2022
    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    But schools need playing fields - it's like building a school without a science lab or library.
    They do, but they're generally fenced off from the general public for pretty obvious safeguarding reasons, which is what it seems Eabhal is objecting to, the public loss of the field.

    Well yes, protesting that is wrong in my view.
    What's weird is that you think the very act of opposing it is wrong, not just that you think my position is wrong.

    That anyone with any contrary view, or insight that should be taken into account during the decision making process, should just shut up.

    All I've done is point out that there are two unused car parks in town that would work, and that the field has a value that is currently not recognised by the council.

    We see this at a national level too - Glen Etive being the best example. A unique national asset but because renewables trump everything else, all other factors automatically disregarded for a tiny benefit.
    I don't think there should be a decision making process. I am in favour of abolishing "planning", apart from broad brush zoning strokes.

    I think you should be able to say whatever you want, I believe in free speech. But I retain the right to oppose what you say, and the way what you say is taken into account.
  • https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1576859321857712128

    Kwasi Kwarteng once said 'f**k' twice on University Challenge

    I like him.
  • Scott_xP said:

    There’s a serious point to all this. My constituents will still face massive hikes in their mortgages, hundreds of products have been removed from the market. First time buyers frozen out and families facing hundreds of pounds in extra payments each month. The damage is done.
    https://twitter.com/CPJElmore/status/1576829416659120128

    Because the market moves long term had no connection to the almost irrelevant £2bn change, which is why that almost irrelevant change being reversed isn't reversing the moves.

    As I told you last week. I was right.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    I think it's a combination of splitting the scheme up so literally every building firm you can think of (and many you've never heard of) are all building 100 or so houses max and similar games - the end result is the council has a pile of money but no actual infrastructure nor space to build anything...
    The money goes to the Council, the Council needs to build it.

    If the Council isn't doing so, then that's their responsibility. If they're blaming the developers, while pocketing the money, then that's almost corrupt.
    Part of the trouble is that you need an awful lot of houses to make it worth building a whole new school.

    (Back of envelope: to make a two form entry primary school, you need around 60 kids in each year group. That's about 60 children per year x 80 years of life, call it a neghbourhood population of 5000 people, so rather more than 1000 homes. You could have a smaller intake, but then it's hard to make the school work well or viably.)

    So the developer contributions towards schools get parcelled out among existing schools to improve/expand their existing facilities. Which makes sense, but means that you never get round to doing the step-change expansion (a new school, surgery, tram line) that all the little developments collectively probably require.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,274
    darkage said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    @Cyclefree

    Have you been following this developing issue with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
    In a nutshell, a bill that revokes all EU regulations transposed in to UK law by the end of 2023.
    They are clearly hoping that they can restart the Brexit wars, but there might just be some perverse consequences.

    https://simonicity.com/2022/10/01/ruler/
    I have. I am intending - once I get my head round it - to write about it, if I can do so in a way that will not have the usual suspects foaming.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,389
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
    I would not be surprised if they abolished Environment. Nor would I be surprised if they decided schools should be entirely self governed and dumped Education. Let people decide how they want to educate their kids.

    (BTW - I am not commenting on whether these changes make any sense. Supreme Leader Truss does not work on that basis)
    Vouchers for schooling seems to me to be an extremely sensible way forward.
    Do you think it would it achieve the same level of success as Cameron's "Money follows the patient" scheme?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    But schools need playing fields - it's like building a school without a science lab or library.
    They do, but they're generally fenced off from the general public for pretty obvious safeguarding reasons, which is what it seems Eabhal is objecting to, the public loss of the field.

    Well yes, protesting that is wrong in my view.
    What's weird is that you think the very act of opposing it is wrong, not just that you think my position is wrong.

    That anyone with any contrary view, or insight that should be taken into account during the decision making process, should just shut up.

    All I've done is point out that there are two unused car parks in town that would work, and that the field has a value that is currently not recognised by the council.

    We see this at a national level too - Glen Etive being the best example. A unique national asset but because renewables trump everything else, all other factors automatically disregarded for a tiny benefit.
    I don't think there should be a decision making process. I am in favour of abolishing "planning", apart from broad brush zoning strokes.

    I think you should be able to say whatever you want, I believe in free speech. But I retain the right to oppose what you say, and the way what you say is taken into account.
    It's this kind of view that led to some of the UK's finest cities being wrecked after the war.

    There is a stock of value in our public realm that is rarely into account. The Edinburgh skyline and the Turd Hotel.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674
    OllyT said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    The hard fact is that whenever your wing of the party is in the ascendent (be it Militant, Momentum or Corbynistas) you gift power to the Tories. You never, ever learn. This country is not going to elect a far left government, it's pure self-indulgence on your part.
    I have voted for Callaghan, Foot,Kinnock, Blair, Brown Ed, Jezza.

    The Party is a broad church.

    Not anymore.

    BTW everytime my wing of the Party has been ascendant those who claim to be Labour MPs have actually fooked off and joined the SDP, Change UK etc as they are so incredibly self indulgent to the extent they hate Democratic Socialism
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited October 2022
    Commentators on Sky catching up with what I said, which is that the £2bn of the package was a very small part of it.

    "Relatively small" fiscal impact it is now being described as.

    The optics were bad, but the economics were not. This is another pasty tax, political more than economic.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?

    It's a new school - i.e. a project for the good of the community and you are upset by it?????

    Of course - there is a massive great car park for a closed Tesco that would do the trick instead.
    So the council wish to build on land they own. And you want them to build on land they don't own...

    There is a simple solution there - why don't you buy the car park and closed store from Tesco and donate it to the council....

  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    But schools need playing fields - it's like building a school without a science lab or library.
    They do, but they're generally fenced off from the general public for pretty obvious safeguarding reasons, which is what it seems Eabhal is objecting to, the public loss of the field.

    Well yes, protesting that is wrong in my view.
    What's weird is that you think the very act of opposing it is wrong, not just that you think my position is wrong.

    That anyone with any contrary view, or insight that should be taken into account during the decision making process, should just shut up.

    All I've done is point out that there are two unused car parks in town that would work, and that the field has a value that is currently not recognised by the council.

    We see this at a national level too - Glen Etive being the best example. A unique national asset but because renewables trump everything else, all other factors automatically disregarded for a tiny benefit.
    I don't think there should be a decision making process. I am in favour of abolishing "planning", apart from broad brush zoning strokes.

    I think you should be able to say whatever you want, I believe in free speech. But I retain the right to oppose what you say, and the way what you say is taken into account.
    It's this kind of view that led to some of the UK's finest cities being wrecked after the war.

    There is a stock of value in our public realm that is rarely into account. The Edinburgh skyline and the Turd Hotel.
    Careful, you'll set Leon off on one of his favourite and oft repeated themes.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,480

    Ed Davey doesn’t look or sound well. 😕

    Pretty sure I saw the crack in the universe from Dr Who in his forehead too. Having a tear in the fabric of reality right there won't help.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,876

    Scott_xP said:

    There’s a serious point to all this. My constituents will still face massive hikes in their mortgages, hundreds of products have been removed from the market. First time buyers frozen out and families facing hundreds of pounds in extra payments each month. The damage is done.
    https://twitter.com/CPJElmore/status/1576829416659120128

    Because the market moves long term had no connection to the almost irrelevant £2bn change, which is why that almost irrelevant change being reversed isn't reversing the moves.

    As I told you last week. I was right.
    To be fair, you tell us that every week, usually more than once :wink:
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    I think it's a combination of splitting the scheme up so literally every building firm you can think of (and many you've never heard of) are all building 100 or so houses max and similar games - the end result is the council has a pile of money but no actual infrastructure nor space to build anything...
    The money goes to the Council, the Council needs to build it.

    If the Council isn't doing so, then that's their responsibility. If they're blaming the developers, while pocketing the money, then that's almost corrupt.
    Part of the trouble is that you need an awful lot of houses to make it worth building a whole new school.

    (Back of envelope: to make a two form entry primary school, you need around 60 kids in each year group. That's about 60 children per year x 80 years of life, call it a neghbourhood population of 5000 people, so rather more than 1000 homes. You could have a smaller intake, but then it's hard to make the school work well or viably.)

    So the developer contributions towards schools get parcelled out among existing schools to improve/expand their existing facilities. Which makes sense, but means that you never get round to doing the step-change expansion (a new school, surgery, tram line) that all the little developments collectively probably require.
    Our daughters primary school is very good and only has 30 kids in each year group, which means there's just one class per year, which I think is a small but good thing as it means the kids know they are staying with the same classmates every year. So you could halve your number.

    But yes, I completely agree, the notion each new housing estate requires a new school is absurd, which is why the Council should be responsible for any new school or other community developments, not developers.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    felix said:

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    73% as of this month for me, was 42% before then.
    Well done - have you just got a new job?
    Golly - I'm in the top 83% here in sunny Spain - and I'm just a struggling pensionista! :wink::blush::smiley:
    Similar here - it is surprising.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    You, like a few others, do seem stuck on Corbyn. A bit like someone going on about how great Blair was in 2016. They would have said what you just did.
    Blair is and was great, I said that even when I was singing Corbyn's theme. He won three elections.
    Blair allowed Socialits to co exist in Labour I voted Blair twice. SKS hasn't he is a divisive factionalist
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,876
    Selebian said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There’s a serious point to all this. My constituents will still face massive hikes in their mortgages, hundreds of products have been removed from the market. First time buyers frozen out and families facing hundreds of pounds in extra payments each month. The damage is done.
    https://twitter.com/CPJElmore/status/1576829416659120128

    Because the market moves long term had no connection to the almost irrelevant £2bn change, which is why that almost irrelevant change being reversed isn't reversing the moves.

    As I told you last week. I was right.
    To be fair, you tell us that every week, usually more than once :wink:
    On the substantive point, if the markets have concluded Truss and Kwarteng are clueless, then them admitting that they were clueless is not going to really reassure the markets. Concern was not over the £2B, but over the apparent belief that the £2B would magically stimulate growth to pay for everything else (and/or the absence of any credible plan on how to pay for everything else).
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    Theresa Villiers and Jacob Rees-Mogg running away from media questions on this u-turn.

    "Kwasi is a brilliant Chancellor." ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1576860066229035008/video/1
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    @Cyclefree

    Have you been following this developing issue with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
    In a nutshell, a bill that revokes all EU regulations transposed in to UK law by the end of 2023.
    They are clearly hoping that they can restart the Brexit wars, but there might just be some perverse consequences.

    https://simonicity.com/2022/10/01/ruler/
    I have. I am intending - once I get my head round it - to write about it, if I can do so in a way that will not have the usual suspects foaming.
    Foamers gonna foam. Just ignore them.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,480

    felix said:

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    73% as of this month for me, was 42% before then.
    Well done - have you just got a new job?
    Golly - I'm in the top 83% here in sunny Spain - and I'm just a struggling pensionista! :wink::blush::smiley:
    Similar here - it is surprising.
    Allegedly I'm 93%. No kids (until Feb helps a lot). I don't feel that wealthy but I suppose we rarely have a worry about stuff (yet). The wife is terrible for spending whatever she earns - expand her pay, expand her spending.

    And this issue is this - many people call for tax rises on the wealthy without twigging that they ARE the wealthy. They always assume its people earning more than them.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    You, like a few others, do seem stuck on Corbyn. A bit like someone going on about how great Blair was in 2016. They would have said what you just did.
    Blair is and was great, I said that even when I was singing Corbyn's theme. He won three elections.
    Blair allowed Socialits to co exist in Labour I voted Blair twice. SKS hasn't he is a divisive factionalist
    John McDonnell and a few others on the left beg to differ.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,882

    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    Also those hot takes on the terrible position Sturgeon found herself in after the special financial operation have aged well.

    I look forward to Scotland's leading celebrity QC making his pivot which will undoubtedly conclude with him being right all along.

    Edit: KC!
    Oh, is that the one who supports Rangers? Mr Findlay?
    Mr Dunlop


    Well that's a relief for you, I guess, that he'll be staying now instead of plying his skills in the Grand Cayman that would have been Newcastle if this tax change had gone through.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,615
    edited October 2022
    Just what the UK needed , a tough PM determined to do the right thing and stay the course ! Lmao !

  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,549
    Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.

    The triumvirate will be:

    1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace
    2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy
    3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over

    Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408
    edited October 2022

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
    I would not be surprised if they abolished Environment. Nor would I be surprised if they decided schools should be entirely self governed and dumped Education. Let people decide how they want to educate their kids.

    (BTW - I am not commenting on whether these changes make any sense. Supreme Leader Truss does not work on that basis)
    If they did that I'd almost be tempted to vote for them again.

    But they won't. They might rename it to get rid of the appalling reputational damage it's had in the last ten years, but they won't willingly let go of their power to meddle in schools.

    And there's no risk they'd abolish OFQUAL or OFSTED, both of whom are at best long past their sell-by date, for the same reasons.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,003
    edited October 2022

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of a 45 billion package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy on the back of this one..

    Well indeed, as I said last week politically and media management this has been utterly mishandled and is atrocious, but economically its different.

    The idea that a £2bn tax change was responsible for rational market movements last week was absurd and I said so all along.

    The Government is potentially having to borrow £150bn for energy support, which was called for by Labour, and £43bn per annum of alternative tax cuts which the Labour Party have said they'd keep too. Plus more importantly but completely missed by the media narrative, the Bank of England had said it would engage in £80bn in Quantitative Tightening, with more QT to come.

    The notion that the Gilt markets could bear the £150bn + £43bn + £80bn but the £2bn extra was economically flawed was just absurd. It always was.

    But the media narrative and public first impression is that is that everything is going to rich people.

    Every working person just got a 2.25% tax cut between NI and Income Tax, 3.5% if you include Employers NI as you should, and the Government is going to get no credit for that at all as the £2bn has overshadowed everything else.

    Ridiculous, just ridiculous.
    So what part of it moved the markets then? making our debt very very much more expensive
    All of it, its a big, complicated picture. There is no individual thing that you can point to and say "that alone".

    The markets had to move because they hadn't priced in the QT and the extent of debt enough. The markets are moving globally. The 45p was poor politics but not poor economics.
    Yes yes, I agree with that - it got the political focus but alone did not move the markets - straightforward gcse economics I’ve been saying it all week too, and we are right to because in peoples minds controversial tax change dominating headlines and the markets moving became blurred in peoples minds.

    The pound is another one you need to put people straight on too Bart, tell them not just to look at pound movements but costs of debt, or else they are making exactly the same silly mistake arn’t they?

    I agree, it was everything that made debt more expensive, quarter of a trillion loan in a shopping basket, and not only no tax rises to sweeten the markets he surprised them with tax cuts.

    But do you agree with me, if he hadn’t announced the tax cuts, quarter of trillion in borrowing alone for the energy market fix would have moved debt market against us?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    Rumours are swirling that MPs – most of whom did not back Truss’s leadership – are beginning to coalesce around Gove and Shapps, who are seen as reliable, writes @REWearmouth
    https://twitter.com/lmharpin/status/1576861932971126785
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    edited October 2022

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    I think it's a combination of splitting the scheme up so literally every building firm you can think of (and many you've never heard of) are all building 100 or so houses max and similar games - the end result is the council has a pile of money but no actual infrastructure nor space to build anything...
    The money goes to the Council, the Council needs to build it.

    If the Council isn't doing so, then that's their responsibility. If they're blaming the developers, while pocketing the money, then that's almost corrupt.
    Part of the trouble is that you need an awful lot of houses to make it worth building a whole new school.

    (Back of envelope: to make a two form entry primary school, you need around 60 kids in each year group. That's about 60 children per year x 80 years of life, call it a neghbourhood population of 5000 people, so rather more than 1000 homes. You could have a smaller intake, but then it's hard to make the school work well or viably.)

    So the developer contributions towards schools get parcelled out among existing schools to improve/expand their existing facilities. Which makes sense, but means that you never get round to doing the step-change expansion (a new school, surgery, tram line) that all the little developments collectively probably require.
    Our daughters primary school is very good and only has 30 kids in each year group, which means there's just one class per year, which I think is a small but good thing as it means the kids know they are staying with the same classmates every year. So you could halve your number.

    But yes, I completely agree, the notion each new housing estate requires a new school is absurd, which is why the Council should be responsible for any new school or other community developments, not developers.
    Having been a governor for a single intake school I really wouldn't recommend them unless you can pair them up with an equivalent school to ensure proper comparisons are easily available. When things are going well you won't see the need for it but believe me when Ofsted comes calling and you discover your lack of comparisons has lured you into a false sense of security...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408
    edited October 2022
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    You, like a few others, do seem stuck on Corbyn. A bit like someone going on about how great Blair was in 2016. They would have said what you just did.
    Blair is and was great, I said that even when I was singing Corbyn's theme. He won three elections.
    Blair allowed Socialits to co exist in Labour I voted Blair twice. SKS hasn't he is a divisive factionalist
    John McDonnell and a few others on the left beg to differ.
    He's even allowed Ian Lavery and Zarah Sultana to stay in the party.

    Corbyn made false allegations about an agency report, refused a direct order to wind his neck in, and is now along with his more gormless supporters bleating about having the whip withdrawn.

    It wasn't Corbyn's policy positions that caused the problem. It was his misbehaviour.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495

    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    Also those hot takes on the terrible position Sturgeon found herself in after the special financial operation have aged well.

    I look forward to Scotland's leading celebrity QC making his pivot which will undoubtedly conclude with him being right all along.

    Edit: KC!
    Oh, is that the one who supports Rangers? Mr Findlay?
    Mr Dunlop


    That's hilarious.

    Forced to leave the country he loves, by the irresistible lure of a few £k. Poor chap. Should we have a whip-round to help him stay in his homeland?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408
    Scott_xP said:

    Rumours are swirling that MPs – most of whom did not back Truss’s leadership – are beginning to coalesce around Gove and Shapps, who are seen as reliable, writes @REWearmouth
    https://twitter.com/lmharpin/status/1576861932971126785

    Heavens above.

    If those two are the answer, then the question included TSE's favourite simile involving stepmoms.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,003

    Ed Davey doesn’t look or sound well. 😕

    Pretty sure I saw the crack in the universe from Dr Who in his forehead too. Having a tear in the fabric of reality right there won't help.
    Although others will say plenty of exciting leaders queuing up, I think his experience and gravitas is important to take Lib Dems into next election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408

    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    Also those hot takes on the terrible position Sturgeon found herself in after the special financial operation have aged well.

    I look forward to Scotland's leading celebrity QC making his pivot which will undoubtedly conclude with him being right all along.

    Edit: KC!
    Oh, is that the one who supports Rangers? Mr Findlay?
    Mr Dunlop


    That's hilarious.

    Forced to leave the country he loves, by the irresistible lure of a few £k. Poor chap. Should we have a whip-round to help him stay in his homeland?
    I'm sure Truss would be up for that.
  • This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of a 45 billion package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy on the back of this one..

    Well indeed, as I said last week politically and media management this has been utterly mishandled and is atrocious, but economically its different.

    The idea that a £2bn tax change was responsible for rational market movements last week was absurd and I said so all along.

    The Government is potentially having to borrow £150bn for energy support, which was called for by Labour, and £43bn per annum of alternative tax cuts which the Labour Party have said they'd keep too. Plus more importantly but completely missed by the media narrative, the Bank of England had said it would engage in £80bn in Quantitative Tightening, with more QT to come.

    The notion that the Gilt markets could bear the £150bn + £43bn + £80bn but the £2bn extra was economically flawed was just absurd. It always was.

    But the media narrative and public first impression is that is that everything is going to rich people.

    Every working person just got a 2.25% tax cut between NI and Income Tax, 3.5% if you include Employers NI as you should, and the Government is going to get no credit for that at all as the £2bn has overshadowed everything else.

    Ridiculous, just ridiculous.
    So what part of it moved the markets then? making our debt very very much more expensive
    All of it, its a big, complicated picture. There is no individual thing that you can point to and say "that alone".

    The markets had to move because they hadn't priced in the QT and the extent of debt enough. The markets are moving globally. The 45p was poor politics but not poor economics.
    Yes yes, I agree with that - it got the political focus but alone did not move the markets - straightforward gcse economics I’ve been saying it all week too, and we are right to because in peoples minds controversial tax change dominating headlines and the markets moving became blurred in peoples minds.

    The pound is another one you need to put people straight on too Bart, tell them not just to look at pound movements but costs of debt, or else they are making exactly the same silly mistake arn’t they?

    I agree, it was everything that made debt more expensive, quarter of a trillion loan in a shopping basket, and not only no tax rises to sweeten the markets he surprised them with tax cuts.

    But do you agree with me, if he hadn’t announced the tax cuts, quarter of trillion in borrowing alone for the energy market fix would have moved debt market against us?
    Indeed you have been saying it too and yes you're right the market had to move either way with or without the tax cuts. Markets are moving globally with or without tax cuts.

    The ECB haven't yet begun QT and after the past ten days I suspect they're not going to for a long time now, if ever. The BoE will kick it into the long grass too. That was a significant proposal that moved the markets, which is why its reversal largely helped stabilise them, but its not getting any metaphorical column inches at all.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    Scott_xP said:

    Rumours are swirling that MPs – most of whom did not back Truss’s leadership – are beginning to coalesce around Gove and Shapps, who are seen as reliable, writes @REWearmouth
    https://twitter.com/lmharpin/status/1576861932971126785

    I find it worrying that Shapps is seen as reliable - clearly the barrier has been set just a few nanometres above the ground...
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,968

    OllyT said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    The hard fact is that whenever your wing of the party is in the ascendent (be it Militant, Momentum or Corbynistas) you gift power to the Tories. You never, ever learn. This country is not going to elect a far left government, it's pure self-indulgence on your part.
    I have voted for Callaghan, Foot,Kinnock, Blair, Brown Ed, Jezza.

    The Party is a broad church.

    Not anymore.

    BTW everytime my wing of the Party has been ascendant those who claim to be Labour MPs have actually fooked off and joined the SDP, Change UK etc as they are so incredibly self indulgent to the extent they hate Democratic Socialism
    They hate losing.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,039
    TimS said:

    Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.

    The triumvirate will be:

    1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace
    2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy
    3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over

    Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.

    You miss growth and tax cuts.

    The Corporation tax changes were going to generate £18bn or so. So that's £18bn of cuts that need to be found.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    DavidL said:

    Well that Nick Robinson interview with the Chancellor (I assume that he still is, it was nearly an hour ago) was embarrassing. Made worse by Truss's comments yesterday morning of course. The combination of intellectual arrogance and blind stupidity is not endearing, is it?

    It certainly puts the tax on hot pasties into perspective. There is so much to do to try and restore credibility to this government again and they have barely started.

    Truss's problem is that she and Kwarteng go back a long way, it makes it much harder to let go when you have, er, been so tightly bound....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,845
    F1: backed Sainz each way at 19 to win in Suzuka.

    He did well at other old school tracks like Spa and Silverstone.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Rumours are swirling that MPs – most of whom did not back Truss’s leadership – are beginning to coalesce around Gove and Shapps, who are seen as reliable, writes @REWearmouth
    https://twitter.com/lmharpin/status/1576861932971126785

    I find it worrying that Shapps is seen as reliable - clearly the barrier has been set just a few nanometres above the ground...
    After the Michael Green fiasco he should never have been near cabinet. Not just that he did it, but that he lied about it.

    He didn't improve later, either. The IRP says hello.
  • felix said:

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap

    This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.

    Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..

    The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
    Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
    Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
    Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
    Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.

    https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
    73% as of this month for me, was 42% before then.
    Well done - have you just got a new job?
    Golly - I'm in the top 83% here in sunny Spain - and I'm just a struggling pensionista! :wink::blush::smiley:
    Similar here - it is surprising.
    Allegedly I'm 93%. No kids (until Feb helps a lot). I don't feel that wealthy but I suppose we rarely have a worry about stuff (yet). The wife is terrible for spending whatever she earns - expand her pay, expand her spending.

    And this issue is this - many people call for tax rises on the wealthy without twigging that they ARE the wealthy. They always assume its people earning more than them.

    It has long been an argument I have had with a few of my colleagues. They sit around going on about the scrounging poor at one end and the abominable tax dodging 1% at the other, thinking they themselves are part of the average hard working mass in the middle. I have to point out to them that, whilst they may not be either abominable or tax dodging they are very close to, if not actually part of, the 1% nationally and most certainly part of the 1% globally.

    On that chart I am currently part of the top 3%. Unfortunately, I expect that by early next year on the same chart I will be part of the lowest 2%, at least for a while.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More trouble at the mill.

    Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”

    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857

    Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).

    As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
    You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
    So which departments do you want to bin

    Employment Benefit / Pensions
    Environment
    Justice
    Education
    Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
    Home Office

    There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
    If we moved to a universal income you could get rid of all or most of the first one.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,313

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    I think it's a combination of splitting the scheme up so literally every building firm you can think of (and many you've never heard of) are all building 100 or so houses max and similar games - the end result is the council has a pile of money but no actual infrastructure nor space to build anything...
    The money goes to the Council, the Council needs to build it.

    If the Council isn't doing so, then that's their responsibility. If they're blaming the developers, while pocketing the money, then that's almost corrupt.
    These estates that are thrown up in the countryside need schools, health facilities, child play areas, cycle paths, nature reserves, new road junctions, bus routes etc.

    The cost of doing this nearly always outweighs any surplus profit that you may be able to squeeze out of developers. They have to be funded by the state. There is usually a contribution towards this from developers which is fought hard over. There isn't enough money due to austerity so you get more and more people trying to milk the planning system, IE the police demanding 10k per new house. The whole thing is extremely dysfunctional and results in bad outcomes of the type discussed above.

    People just need to realise that they can't just expect developers to do all the above by themselves. If there is a house price crash they won't even be able to build any houses, nevermind the associated infrastructure etc. There are no easy wins in any of this.


  • eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Jonathan said:

    So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.

    They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:

    - what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend
    - precisely how these will lead to growth
    - over what timetable and
    - for whom.

    We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
    And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
    Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.

    It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
    Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.

    Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
    I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.

    For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.

    Is it wrong to protest that?
    You're protesting the building of a school ?!

    I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
    Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
    My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
    I think it's a combination of splitting the scheme up so literally every building firm you can think of (and many you've never heard of) are all building 100 or so houses max and similar games - the end result is the council has a pile of money but no actual infrastructure nor space to build anything...
    The money goes to the Council, the Council needs to build it.

    If the Council isn't doing so, then that's their responsibility. If they're blaming the developers, while pocketing the money, then that's almost corrupt.
    Part of the trouble is that you need an awful lot of houses to make it worth building a whole new school.

    (Back of envelope: to make a two form entry primary school, you need around 60 kids in each year group. That's about 60 children per year x 80 years of life, call it a neghbourhood population of 5000 people, so rather more than 1000 homes. You could have a smaller intake, but then it's hard to make the school work well or viably.)

    So the developer contributions towards schools get parcelled out among existing schools to improve/expand their existing facilities. Which makes sense, but means that you never get round to doing the step-change expansion (a new school, surgery, tram line) that all the little developments collectively probably require.
    Our daughters primary school is very good and only has 30 kids in each year group, which means there's just one class per year, which I think is a small but good thing as it means the kids know they are staying with the same classmates every year. So you could halve your number.

    But yes, I completely agree, the notion each new housing estate requires a new school is absurd, which is why the Council should be responsible for any new school or other community developments, not developers.
    Having been a governor for a single intake school I really wouldn't recommend them unless you can pair them up with an equivalent school to ensure proper comparisons are easily available. When things are going well you won't see the need for it but believe me when Ofsted comes calling and you discover your lack of comparisons has lured you into a false sense of security...
    Fair enough. As far as Ofsted are concerned their school gets very good ratings, which is why we chose it. I am in its catchment area but drive past three other primary schools to get to that one, but I wouldn't have it any other way. The one on our road that's in walking distance does not have as good reviews or ratings.

    Having not been involved in schooling other than as a parent, I would imagine that the culture of the teachers, administration and to some extent kids via their parents matters more than intake size. I suspect good rated schools can be self reinforcing as parents who want a good education for their kids choose those instead of more convenient ones, which helps keep a good culture of learning in the school.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,674
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!

    Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
    Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories? :lol:
    You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
    You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
    I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.

    Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
    You do seem stuck in the past.
    Not at all

    In the past I voted Labour.

    In the present and future I am not.

    Hope that helps.
    You, like a few others, do seem stuck on Corbyn. A bit like someone going on about how great Blair was in 2016. They would have said what you just did.
    Blair is and was great, I said that even when I was singing Corbyn's theme. He won three elections.
    Blair allowed Socialits to co exist in Labour I voted Blair twice. SKS hasn't he is a divisive factionalist
    John McDonnell and a few others on the left beg to differ.
    Tony Benn and Robin Cook were in Blairs top team.

    Who has SKS got of a Socialist persuasion?

    He has found made up reasons to get rid of them.

    Are you not a bit embarrassed the only Jewish woman voted on to the NEC has been suspended for speaking at an organisation that was allowed when she spoke. Retrospective application of prohibited groups is a complete joke and of course only applied against Socialists.

    We had people who stood against the Party in 2017 and 2019 at Conference calling lifelong Labour Tory enablers without a hint of irony.

    What next Sunil for PM
This discussion has been closed.