The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.
Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.
Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.
Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.
If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
Even if you are right and there was a Tory wipe out, Farage would not be LOTO under FPTP. That would be the SNP or LDs.
However as I said yesterday I think you are wrong re Hunt. Yes he would lose the wingnuts to the right, but he is sane and that attracts moderate non political voters.
Not necessarily, if Farage's party got 25 to 30% of the vote and Hunt's party say 10% them Farage's party would win 150 to 200 seats.
Farage would then be Leader of the Opposition
I disagree. It would be fun to find out though.
Farage will not have a ground game. He couldn't even do it in by-elections. He was rubbish in organising locally. Depending upon the seat, Lab (mainly) or the LDs will pick up tactical votes to win from the Tories. I don't believe Farage could win more than a few tens of seats even on that percentage.
I could be wrong of course.
If you get 25% of the vote you will win at least 50 to 100 seats even with no ground game.
Farage would easily win 50 to 100 strong Leave seats which voted for Boris on 25%
Roy Jenkins and David Steel (who had excellent ground games) say hello.
In GB terms the Alliance polled 26.3% in 1983 yet ended up with circa 20 seats.
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
Totally off topic but. The Netherlands have just beaten the UAE in the cricket (well 20/20) World Cup, thanks to a late stand by two Dutchmen, called Edwards and Pringle!
Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to close
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.
Up to the point Lord Copper when people realise it's not just other folk's taxes that are going up but theirs too. They they refocus on cutting out the waste and making sensible priorities.
Another stunningly renewable day on the grid. Just 3.5gw of CCGT generation currently, which seems to be the minimum it ever manages presumably because a couple of gas plants are cheaper to keep running than switch off and on.
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
1. Japanese 2. Italian 3. Indian
Worst...
1. British 2. Polish 3. Bulgarian
I recall with distaste some of the meals I had when on a fraternal visit to communist Bulgaria! The wines were very good, though!
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
1. Japanese 2. Italian 3. Indian
Worst...
1. British 2. Polish 3. Bulgarian
For anyone planning a violent night out can you please clarify whether British is better or worse than Bulgarian.
How are the contributions to Ukraine being funded? If they are coming out of the defence budget 3% will not be enough. As it is a hell of a lot of kit is going to need replaced.
From a Parliamentary briefing paper published Friday:-
The US is the largest provider of military assistance to Ukraine, having committed $17.5 billion since the start of the Biden administration. $16.8 billion of that assistance has been provided since February 2022.
The UK has committed £2.3 billion in military assistance to Ukraine thus far and has made a pledge to match that assistance in 2023. The UK is also hosting a training programme, supported by a number of allies, with the aim of training 10,000 new and existing Ukrainian personnel within 120 days. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/
The pledged 3% defence spending might not be enough but Liz Truss has already kicked it into the long grass. It is 3% "by the end of the decade" which is after at least two general elections.
Totally off topic but. The Netherlands have just beaten the UAE in the cricket (well 20/20) World Cup, thanks to a late stand by two Dutchmen, called Edwards and Pringle!
did Pringle win the match with a crisp cover drive?
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
Or if you like a reservation at one of our new French eateries. It's overpriced, and not as good as you think it's going to be, most food swimming in grease, but better than the shit you're eating now and you do have the fun of being served by slightly surly and condescending French-trained waiters.
Can't Wetherspoons open up a few joints? Everyone likes their curry club. The Russians would surrender in droves for a curry and a pint of Tyskie for 5.99. Just leave your guns at the door....
(although on thinking about it, being fully-armed is probably best when visiting a Wetherspoons.....)
What a bizarre post. Substitute Indian for French and see how it reads.
The easiest spending cut is reducing energy consumption such that the government is on the hook for less.
I personally think the energy price cap is too universal a measure and could be tiered such that the current level is means tested and everyone we keep has a slightly higher cap.
The first of these is a political no brainer (ah, I see the problem...) while the ship has probably sailed on the latter.
The easiest spending cut is reducing energy consumption such that the government is on the hook for less.
I personally think the energy price cap is too universal a measure and could be tiered such that the current level is means tested and everyone we keep has a slightly higher cap.
The first of these is a political no brainer (ah, I see the problem...) while the ship has probably sailed on the latter.
I don't disgree there. Not sure how it can be means tested though. Pension credit? Universal Benefit? Housing Benefit?
I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.
But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.
Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.
So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.
Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.
Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.
The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossible
And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
Yes , but they could a) change the rules or b) force her to quit. I think B is more likely. I don't think she will be able to handle the pressure - no one could. We are rapidly approaching the point where - whenever she emerges in public - she is just met with howls of scorn, laughter and derision.
Edit - there are lots of stories that are simply devastating for her. Like the one from Kwarteng yesterday that she forced him in to the 45p tax cut etc. And then she sacked him for the consequences of the policy. Without giving any explanation why. The disasters are happening faster than we are able to process or assess them.
So you force Truss to quit How do you stop the Tory membership voting for another candidate offering similar policies at the subsequent leadership election.
Because the Tory party has another fractions that a single party uniting candidate doesn’t exist
To replace Truss you need to ensure her replacement is appointed unopposed and it’s that more than anything else which is keeping Truss in place
The Tories are paralysed and stuck with Truss until they figure out a way to bypass the barking mad membership.
John Major's "bastards" have now got too strong a foothold in parliament and the membership is right behind them - they would elect Farage if that was an option.
I can't see a unity candidate emerging - it only takes 20 MPs to dissent and it goes to the members.
Re your last sentence, that can be changed by the 1922 committee at anytime
Some day, people who can count will be in charge again.
Many of the same voters who believed the BoZo bullshit and voted for Brexit believed the Truss bullshit and voted for her.
They have proven that are not fit to choose again...
Within the EU our economic difficulties would be exactly the same as outside the EU.
We would still have a trade deficit, still have a growth rate that is half what it was from 1950-1999, still be coping with the fallout from Covid and Ukraine.
And, politically, Conservative MPs would still be behaving like Conservative MP's.
We've always obsessed too much about the EU: discussion of our relationship with it manages to stifle any discussion of the UK's real issues.
The best example of the way the EU is merely symbolic for many pro-Europeans is the way they will argue that we should copy the major EU countries because everything is better there while the UK is stuck in the past, but then act as if the biggest domestic threat is to the NHS. Somehow at this point the idea of learning from or European neighbours becomes too painful.
There are a range of political views within the pro-European cause as there were fir Brexit.
The “Brexit is a ruse to destroy the NHS, despoil the environment and enable tax avoidance” is from the lefty / monbiot remain flank.
“Brexit is economic self harm imposed by retired golf club bores out of touch with the real world of business” is the centrist dad remain battalion.
Finally, “Brexit shows Britain is a nation of awful racists who by the way practised murder and eugenics with their lax lockdown policies” is the FBPE / blue heart paramilitary wing.
I am in the centrist dad battalion most of whom had accepted things in 2019 and got on with life but find the occasional “told you so” irresistible.
Or the reality: Brexit was a cry of rage from people who had been marginalised and poorly served by their leaders for many many years.
It was an entirely futile cry of rage, nothing will change. The EU wasn't at the root of their problems.
They simply served as enablers for the ERG "bastards" wing of the Tories and we had a brief glimpse of the the sort of Brexit they had in mind last week. Levelling up and help for the poor and marginalised wasn't a noticeable feature.
The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.
Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.
Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.
Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.
If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
Even if you are right and there was a Tory wipe out, Farage would not be LOTO under FPTP. That would be the SNP or LDs.
However as I said yesterday I think you are wrong re Hunt. Yes he would lose the wingnuts to the right, but he is sane and that attracts moderate non political voters.
Not necessarily, if Farage's party got 25 to 30% of the vote and Hunt's party say 10% them Farage's party would win 150 to 200 seats.
Farage would then be Leader of the Opposition
I disagree. It would be fun to find out though.
Farage will not have a ground game. He couldn't even do it in by-elections. He was rubbish in organising locally. Depending upon the seat, Lab (mainly) or the LDs will pick up tactical votes to win from the Tories. I don't believe Farage could win more than a few tens of seats even on that percentage.
I could be wrong of course.
If you get 25% of the vote you will win at least 50 to 100 seats even with no ground game.
Farage would easily win 50 to 100 strong Leave seats which voted for Boris on 25%
Roy Jenkins and David Steel (who had excellent ground games) say hello.
In GB terms the Alliance polled 26.3% in 1983 yet ended up with circa 20 seats.
So what? Labour got 27% and were still the main opposition to the Tories under FPTP and so got most non Tory seats.
A totally different scenario where a Farage party got 25% and the Tories got just 10%, so the Farage party were the main opposition to Labour and got most non Labour seats
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.
Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.
Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.
Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.
If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
Even if you are right and there was a Tory wipe out, Farage would not be LOTO under FPTP. That would be the SNP or LDs.
However as I said yesterday I think you are wrong re Hunt. Yes he would lose the wingnuts to the right, but he is sane and that attracts moderate non political voters.
Not necessarily, if Farage's party got 25 to 30% of the vote and Hunt's party say 10% them Farage's party would win 150 to 200 seats.
Farage would then be Leader of the Opposition
I disagree. It would be fun to find out though.
Farage will not have a ground game. He couldn't even do it in by-elections. He was rubbish in organising locally. Depending upon the seat, Lab (mainly) or the LDs will pick up tactical votes to win from the Tories. I don't believe Farage could win more than a few tens of seats even on that percentage.
I could be wrong of course.
If you get 25% of the vote you will win at least 50 to 100 seats even with no ground game.
Farage would easily win 50 to 100 strong Leave seats which voted for Boris on 25%
Roy Jenkins and David Steel (who had excellent ground games) say hello.
In GB terms the Alliance polled 26.3% in 1983 yet ended up with circa 20 seats.
So what? Labour got 27% and were still the main opposition to the Tories under FPTP and so got most non Tory seats.
A totally different scenario where a Farage party got 25% and the Tories got just 10%, so the Farage party were the main opposition to Labour and got most non Labour seats
The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.
Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.
Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.
Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.
If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
Even if you are right and there was a Tory wipe out, Farage would not be LOTO under FPTP. That would be the SNP or LDs.
However as I said yesterday I think you are wrong re Hunt. Yes he would lose the wingnuts to the right, but he is sane and that attracts moderate non political voters.
Not necessarily, if Farage's party got 25 to 30% of the vote and Hunt's party say 10% them Farage's party would win 150 to 200 seats.
Farage would then be Leader of the Opposition
I disagree. It would be fun to find out though.
Farage will not have a ground game. He couldn't even do it in by-elections. He was rubbish in organising locally. Depending upon the seat, Lab (mainly) or the LDs will pick up tactical votes to win from the Tories. I don't believe Farage could win more than a few tens of seats even on that percentage.
I could be wrong of course.
If you get 25% of the vote you will win at least 50 to 100 seats even with no ground game.
Farage would easily win 50 to 100 strong Leave seats which voted for Boris on 25%
Roy Jenkins and David Steel (who had excellent ground games) say hello.
In GB terms the Alliance polled 26.3% in 1983 yet ended up with circa 20 seats.
So what? Labour got 27% and were still the main opposition to the Tories under FPTP and so got most non Tory seats.
A totally different scenario where a Farage party got 25% and the Tories got just 10%, so the Farage party were the main opposition to Labour and got most non Labour seats
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
1. Japanese 2. Italian 3. Indian
Worst...
1. British 2. Polish 3. Bulgarian
For anyone planning a violent night out can you please clarify whether British is better or worse than Bulgarian.
British was the worst although that's probably because it's the largest sample size and most of that was at sea so I've really had a chance to experience the gravest atrocities that British military catering can perpetrate.
Food on Indian Navy ships is amazing... if you're an officer...
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
The easiest spending cut is reducing energy consumption such that the government is on the hook for less.
I personally think the energy price cap is too universal a measure and could be tiered such that the current level is means tested and everyone we keep has a slightly higher cap.
The first of these is a political no brainer (ah, I see the problem...) while the ship has probably sailed on the latter.
I don't disgree there. Not sure how it can be means tested though. Pension credit? Universal Benefit? Housing Benefit?
Good challenge, I'm not sure of the best way.
An alternative would be the cap only applies in the first X energy usage. That might make people more price sensitive while giving relief on essential usage. Hard to fairly calculate X, but I think better to try than give unlimited support to the price insensitive.
Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to close
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.
There is certainly potential to raise some taxes. But I think we are getting close to the limit of what can be done - we are at a 30-40 year high in tax take IIRC.
I don’t think we can successfully close the entire gap with tax increases. Which was one of the limiting assumptions in my original post…
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
1. Japanese 2. Italian 3. Indian
Worst...
1. British 2. Polish 3. Bulgarian
I recall with distaste some of the meals I had when on a fraternal visit to communist Bulgaria! The wines were very good, though!
The way that Bulgaria still exports the shit wine, while producing some incredible wines at home is bloody annoying.
I've had some Chardonnays there that I would put up against French wines at 10x the price.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
How are the contributions to Ukraine being funded? If they are coming out of the defence budget 3% will not be enough. As it is a hell of a lot of kit is going to need replaced.
From a Parliamentary briefing paper published Friday:-
The US is the largest provider of military assistance to Ukraine, having committed $17.5 billion since the start of the Biden administration. $16.8 billion of that assistance has been provided since February 2022.
The UK has committed £2.3 billion in military assistance to Ukraine thus far and has made a pledge to match that assistance in 2023. The UK is also hosting a training programme, supported by a number of allies, with the aim of training 10,000 new and existing Ukrainian personnel within 120 days. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/
The pledged 3% defence spending might not be enough but Liz Truss has already kicked it into the long grass. It is 3% "by the end of the decade" which is after at least two general elections.
It's not happening. Defence is already getting real term cuts due to inflation and the weak pound.
I can see Ajax canned, MRSS down to two hulls, CR3 trimmed and F-35B acquisitions halted at 47 a/c.
The calculation for these investors has fundamentally changed, now they can get 5% return on cash, or a real return on index-linked bonds.
Worth keeping an eye on PRS REIT (PRSR) share price to put numbers to the anecdotes.
Why take the risk of capital loss and below inflation returns and the potential for voids and the hassle and agents fees etc, when better and easier options are available?
Looks to me like a no-brainier to get out of BTL, while you still have a chance of getting a decent price.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to close
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.
There is certainly potential to raise some taxes. But I think we are getting close to the limit of what can be done - we are at a 30-40 year high in tax take IIRC.
I don’t think we can successfully close the entire gap with tax increases. Which was one of the limiting assumptions in my original post…
Why is the limit of what can be done defined by the tax take over the last 30-40 years? Why isn’t it defined by what happened 50 years ago, or what happens in other successful OECD nations?
Put in Labour 45%, RefUK 25%, LDs 15% and Tories 10% which is much more realistic in that scenario and you get RefUK 71, LDs 41. So Farage does become Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer
I don’t see REFUK ever breaching 15-16% even in the case of total Tory collapse. Total Tory collapse implies the country falling out of love with right wing politics.
As this is, unbelievably, a slow news day, what do we think the % shares would be if we had full list PR? I'd guess something like:
Faragist RefUK 10 Huntist moderate Con 25 LibDems 20 Starmerist Labour 25 Corbynist left 15 Others 5
No big demur, Nick, but I sadly feel the hard populist right might do a touch better than 10%. I'd say there's a close to perfect correlation between that and those in the UK who - either overtly or secretly - like Donald Trump. They are pretty much the exact same people.
Corbynist left are a little on the high side and Starmer Labour a touch low. Permanent opposition for the Corbynistas would be their dream come true, with the possibility of Centrist coalition Government.Everyone is happy!
There will be a correlation between the fortunes of the Huntsters and the Farageists. I would imagine, each would move up and down at the expense of the other. But like the Corbyn faction, the dream of permanent carping from the sidelines should tick all Farage's boxes.
Well Pete when you say everbody would be happy i think you would be happier with continuity Liberal Elitism that we have had since 1979 rather than a redistributive Labour. This bollocks about people on the left being happy in opposition is complete rubbish.
Forde would suggest its rather the Centrists who would rather be in opposition than have even a whiff of Democratic Socialism
But it's true BJO. Corbyn and his Momentum chums were the internal Opposition withing the New Labour Party in Government. Corbyn's voting record demonstrated this amply
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
The calculation for these investors has fundamentally changed, now they can get 5% return on cash, or a real return on index-linked bonds.
Worth keeping an eye on PRS REIT (PRSR) share price to put numbers to the anecdotes.
Why take the risk of capital loss and below inflation returns and the potential for voids and the hassle and agents fees etc, when better and easier options are available?
Looks to me like a no-brainier to get out of BTL, while you still have a chance of getting a decent price.
Was idly looking at Exeter houseprices. There seems to be a stampede to offload student accom.
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The tax rate when North Sea oil revenue was flooding the Treasury at the rate of one new build hospital per day, is of little relevance to today's.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
Income Tax rates can be raised when circumstances dictate. The current needs re-fiscal stringency might justify returning the Higher Rate to a level found acceptable to Thatcher for 9 years. I suspect that former Tory Chancellors such as Anthony Barber , Reginald Maudling, Selwyn Lloyd, Harold Macmillan and R A Butler would seriously consider such an option.
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
Or if you like a reservation at one of our new French eateries. It's overpriced, and not as good as you think it's going to be, most food swimming in grease, but better than the shit you're eating now and you do have the fun of being served by slightly surly and condescending French-trained waiters.
Can't Wetherspoons open up a few joints? Everyone likes their curry club. The Russians would surrender in droves for a curry and a pint of Tyskie for 5.99. Just leave your guns at the door....
(although on thinking about it, being fully-armed is probably best when visiting a Wetherspoons.....)
One of my favourite war stories is the Germans at Monte Casino in WW 2. Besieged for weeks they were reduced to living on rats. In desperation, they counterattacked breaking into the American trenches…where they found fresh cream cakes delivered from Chicago.
They surrendered.
One client of my father's, who was captured by the Italians, was certain that the food they served POW's was better than that in the British army.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
Farage continuously says himself that he wouldn't start a new party, because the odds are so stacked against any new party due to FPTP. And this is basically a problem with no solution. If you want to get something done in politics, you either have to work within the structures of the existing big tent parties; or work to influence them from the outside.
The trouble with the small state, thatcherite libertarian wing of the conservative party is that they are very far away from where the country is on economics and the role of the state. Liz Truss is already the most unpopular leader in modern political history, and her economic ideas have also been rejected by the markets, and had to be stopped when it became clear that they would lead to Venuzuela like chaos if they were actually implemented. This is not the basis for any sort of new populist revolt. When the populist revolt comes my best guess is the flashpoint will be on issues of race and cultural identity, with economics being secondary to this. The 'liberal' post Brexit immigration policies of the conservative party, advanced by Johnson, are more likely to be the cause of a right wing revolt than anything to do with tax cuts.
The calculation for these investors has fundamentally changed, now they can get 5% return on cash, or a real return on index-linked bonds.
Worth keeping an eye on PRS REIT (PRSR) share price to put numbers to the anecdotes.
Why take the risk of capital loss and below inflation returns and the potential for voids and the hassle and agents fees etc, when better and easier options are available?
Looks to me like a no-brainier to get out of BTL, while you still have a chance of getting a decent price.
Was idly looking at Exeter houseprices. There seems to be a stampede to offload student accom.
Even without the mortgage increases, I can't understand the appeal of buy to let.
Trying to evict a tenant who has stopped paying rent, and puts up any kind of defence, is hell on earth.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
Income Tax rates can be raised when circumstances dictate. The current needs re-fiscal stringency might justify returning the Higher Rate to a level found acceptable to Thatcher for 9 years. I suspect that former Tory Chancellors such as Anthony Barber , Reginald Maudling, Selwyn Lloyd, Harold Macmillan and R A Butler would seriously consider such an option.
Yes - to raise or lower may or may not be justified by the circumstances, but acting like it is untory to have been at X rate, when it had been higher under the Tories before, is just dumb.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote. A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.
So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
If we want spending cuts, they need to apply to retirees as well as others. Cut the state pension then have a means tested top-up for some to current levels. End free prescriptions for most over 60s. Look at other nominal charges for the use of the health service.
Otherwise we'll be cutting education (reduces future growth), infrastructure (reduces future growth) or else all the pain will be felt by working aged people who are struggling to get by.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Logistics aren't everything, but they are almost everything.
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
1. Japanese 2. Italian 3. Indian
Worst...
1. British 2. Polish 3. Bulgarian
For anyone planning a violent night out can you please clarify whether British is better or worse than Bulgarian.
British was the worst although that's probably because it's the largest sample size and most of that was at sea so I've really had a chance to experience the gravest atrocities that British military catering can perpetrate.
Food on Indian Navy ships is amazing... if you're an officer...
Hm, a work colleague who was in the Andrew was quite clear that he thought RN food was a lot better than the shite given to the Army. However, he was a submariner, and I don't know if the underwater warriors still have a tradition of better food than the chaps who bob around on the surface?
Edit: one BritishArmy unit in Former Yugoslavia ended up with an outbreak of scurvy, the food in the field was so crap.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
You are forgetting NI.
I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote. A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.
So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.
That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
That is worth paying for.
Non-dom status too? Tax isn't such an issue for them?
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
That is worth paying for.
Do you think the U.K. is the only country that provides such luxuries?
On topic. I think they will remove her before PMQs. @SouthamObserver thinks they will remove her immediately after PMQs. Other predictions?
During PMQs. Everyone just gets up and walks off leaving Liz looking nonplussed, incoherently rambling away about her energy support scheme to an empty chamber?
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
Quality of life - as in availability of various things is a big attraction. Hence the comments about why money hasn't decamped to Frankfurt etc.
Like many things, it is an equation, with quality of life and taxes as some of the variables.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
That is worth paying for.
But you can get the same in - eg - multiple EU countries with better weather and fewer “social issues”. And quite a few non EU countries
Britain is still - on balance - a desirable place to live. This is especially true in london (if you’re rich). But we are getting perilously close to the position where the negatives will outweigh the positives
I suppose we can console ourselves that global instability means almost everywhere feels a bit fucked
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
That is worth paying for.
Do you think the U.K. is the only country that provides such luxuries?
No, but there are not many, for the rich. I don't buy into the notion that changes in tax rates make that much difference to where people choose to live.
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
1. Japanese 2. Italian 3. Indian
Worst...
1. British 2. Polish 3. Bulgarian
I recall with distaste some of the meals I had when on a fraternal visit to communist Bulgaria! The wines were very good, though!
The way that Bulgaria still exports the shit wine, while producing some incredible wines at home is bloody annoying.
I've had some Chardonnays there that I would put up against French wines at 10x the price.
My Russian best mate (the one who stabbed a Cypriot cop on my stag night - fucking lol) spins a great yarn about the Bulgarian toothpaste they got issued at the Chelyabinsk Air Force Academy. This toothpaste could be somehow processed into a milky and revoltingly viscous alcoholic beverage they called Ангельское дерьмо (lit. Shit of Angels). Half a litre was enough to get an officer cadet blind drunk and gave them the skitters for up to a week after imbibification.
When Bulgarian toothpaste was unavailable they used to spread boot polish on bread, scrape it off and eat the bread. 50/50 on instant nausea or headache.
Got loads of other dits from him but the pb bedwetters would not be able to handle them.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote. A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.
So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.
That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
Oh yes, what a landslide the Tories will achieve with a government increasing the basic rate of income tax and higher rate of income tax in a cost of living crisis as well as cutting spending on public services!!!! Meanwhile is that a pig I see flying by?
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
That is worth paying for.
But you can get the same in - eg - multiple EU countries with better weather and fewer “social issues”. And quite a few non EU countries
Britain is still - on balance - a desirable place to live. This is especially true in london (if you’re rich). But we are getting perilously close to the position where the negatives will outweigh the positives
I suppose we can console ourselves that global instability means almost everywhere feels a bit fucked
If you're rich, Britain is an incredible place to live.
You really have a bee in your bonnet about Royale @Mexicanpete . In some ways you are no different to the ludicrous @bigjohnowls . How many points ahead do you think Labour would be under your preferred leader? (Who is your preferred leader?)
Jess, but that's not happening, so Nandy or Reeves. I'm not keen on New Labour Streeting either.
Higher rate tax relief on pension contributions to go?
Would piss off the Tory voter coalition, but raise a lot of money.
Not if it led to more state reliant pensioners
This policy would only affect those earning more than 50k per year though. Who already have to pay national insurance and enter in to a compulsory workplace pension. So how likely is it that they would end up as 'state reliant pensioners'? Not very likely at all I would guess.
Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to close
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.
There is certainly potential to raise some taxes. But I think we are getting close to the limit of what can be done - we are at a 30-40 year high in tax take IIRC.
I don’t think we can successfully close the entire gap with tax increases. Which was one of the limiting assumptions in my original post…
Why is the limit of what can be done defined by the tax take over the last 30-40 years? Why isn’t it defined by what happened 50 years ago, or what happens in other successful OECD nations?
Range since 1940s (30-40 years was a guess cos couldn’t be bothered to check but have now) has been 31-43% GDP
We are currently at 40% GDP.
2020 GDP was 2.7 trillion so 3% is £81bn.
The deficit is £120bn
So you would be increasing the tax take well above the highest level in recorded history.
I don’t think that is possible without negatively impacting economic performance
(FWIW I looked two not-that-random countries. Sweden is 43% GDP and France 45%. So it is theoretically possible but would be a fundamental change in our political/economic structure - and I don’t think it is achievable in that we would then need to limit any future government spending increases to GDP growth and I don’t think we have the political maturity to do that)
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
You do realise a 50% top rate of income tax is higher than the top rate in France, Germany, the US and Canada and the G7 average? It would therefore see investors and the wealthy leave the City and the UK
Seems an odd decision - why do we want the Ukrainians to be trained to run-away??
They could be training the catering corps. Imagine the devastating effect on Russian morale of 2000 Ukrainian chefs on the front line, all cooking cordon bleu dishes for their troops, while the Russian conscripts continue to subsist on cabbage soup and raw potatoes.
Weirdly there was a load of stuff on Twitter saying how the Ukrainian was going to win because they were getting sushi.
Now I mention that I think I may have dreamed it though.
IIRC the context of that comment was that the Russians can barely get inedible food to their front-line soldiers. Which is one of the reason the Russians soldiers pillage so much.
In other words, the Ukrainian army seems to have it's logistical shit in a bag.
Airdropping paper leaflets with menus would be great propaganda. Surrender on Wednesday and you’ll be in time for our curry club. Thursday pizza, Friday and it’s fish and chips.
All joking aside - it has long been said that armies march on their stomachs. Even from doing camping and reasonably hard hiking, the difference between hard living with dry socks and good food and hard living without is massive.
Best military food I've eaten. I am not a food wanker so this just a general rating based on palatability, hygiene, presentation and how equipped for killing a complete stranger it left one feeling.
1. Japanese 2. Italian 3. Indian
Worst...
1. British 2. Polish 3. Bulgarian
If I had to eat Japanese food, I'd probably feel the same...
What is this and why is it politically and historically significant?
There are enough clues in this picture for a smart person to work it out
Nein klein googlein!
One of the Bushes (W I think) was a hard drinker who then went teetotal. Was this bottle either the last one he drank or the first one he refused after crawling on the wagon?
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote. A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.
So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.
That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
Oh yes, what a landslide the Tories will achieve with a government increasing the basic rate of income tax and higher rate of income tax in a cost of living crisis as well as cutting spending on public services!!!! Meanwhile is that a pig I see flying by?
For goodness sake!!
Raise taxes on capital, keep the national insurance and income tax cuts.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
That is worth paying for.
But you can get the same in - eg - multiple EU countries with better weather and fewer “social issues”. And quite a few non EU countries
Britain is still - on balance - a desirable place to live. This is especially true in london (if you’re rich). But we are getting perilously close to the position where the negatives will outweigh the positives
I suppose we can console ourselves that global instability means almost everywhere feels a bit fucked
If you're rich, Britain is an incredible place to live.
One thing that isn't made clear enough to visitors is that so many museums and public attractions are free.
Taking a family of four round the cultural stuff in Rome and Paris is a serious cost.
Plus the quality - the state of most of the stuff in Rome is staggeringly bad.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
You are forgetting NI.
I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
Hunt interview - ALL government departments "being asked for efficiency savings".
Its official. Full-on austerity.
You have a big deficit that you need a plan to close
It’s unlikely that tax rises sufficient to close the complete gap are possible
Productivity enhancements, while critical, take time
The markets are grumpy
What is your solution?
Don’t start from here? The markets weren’t so grumpy until Truss’s mini-budget.
The markets were flashing amber. All the Truss nonsense did was tip it over the edge. The one positive I would highlight is that now the public realise there is a problem that needs fixing.
But @RochdalePioneers was implicitly criticising austerity (I think).
Unfortunately when you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer
Raising taxes fits your thesis just as well as austerity. That’s the choice then: cut public services or raise taxes. Polling suggests the latter is more popular. That’s probably why Sunak chose that route.
There is certainly potential to raise some taxes. But I think we are getting close to the limit of what can be done - we are at a 30-40 year high in tax take IIRC.
I don’t think we can successfully close the entire gap with tax increases. Which was one of the limiting assumptions in my original post…
Why is the limit of what can be done defined by the tax take over the last 30-40 years? Why isn’t it defined by what happened 50 years ago, or what happens in other successful OECD nations?
Range since 1940s (30-40 years was a guess cos couldn’t be bothered to check but have now) has been 31-43% GDP
We are currently at 40% GDP.
2020 GDP was 2.7 trillion so 3% is £81bn.
The deficit is £120bn
So you would be increasing the tax take well above the highest level in recorded history.
I don’t think that is possible without negatively impacting economic performance
(FWIW I looked two not-that-random countries. Sweden is 43% GDP and France 45%. So it is theoretically possible but would be a fundamental change in our political/economic structure - and I don’t think it is achievable in that we would then need to limit any future government spending increases to GDP growth and I don’t think we have the political maturity to do that)
When you eliminate the impossible, whatever’s left, no matter how unpleasant, is the correct answer… or so you said earlier. Raising taxes to be still lower than those in France eliminates the deficit. Austerity 2.0 also eliminates the deficit. We choose our path, but neither is impossible.
George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS
I photographed it yesterday afternoon
His last drink?
Superb!
Yes. Bang on
I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history
So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”
He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
That is worth paying for.
But you can get the same in - eg - multiple EU countries with better weather and fewer “social issues”. And quite a few non EU countries
Britain is still - on balance - a desirable place to live. This is especially true in london (if you’re rich). But we are getting perilously close to the position where the negatives will outweigh the positives
I suppose we can console ourselves that global instability means almost everywhere feels a bit fucked
If you're rich, Britain is an incredible place to live.
Having just spent the weekend staying with a wealthy friend in the West Country I can confidently state that his family have a very pleasant existence
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
You are forgetting NI.
I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
Er I said 50% including NIC!
Sorry - yes.
The problem with NIC is how much it has been mucked up over the years. Roll it into income tax.
The ambition of the state should be that the rules for living in this country should fit on a small set of postcards. Setting tax at a sensible, easy to understand and hard to avoid level is in my top 10.
George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS
I photographed it yesterday afternoon
His last drink?
Superb!
Yes. Bang on
I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history
So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”
He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
No, the direction of travel is more important for the party core vote. A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.
So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
Here's an original thought. The government should try governing in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than in the interests of their core voters.
That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
Oh yes, what a landslide the Tories will achieve with a government increasing the basic rate of income tax and higher rate of income tax in a cost of living crisis as well as cutting spending on public services!!!! Meanwhile is that a pig I see flying by?
For goodness sake!!
Raise taxes on capital, keep the national insurance and income tax cuts.
Pensioners and their heirs are the Tory core vote, lose them to RefUK or the LDs and the Tory voteshare also falls further
George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS
I photographed it yesterday afternoon
His last drink?
Superb!
Yes. Bang on
I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history
So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”
He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober
That is an impressive feat to just quit like that given how bad he was.
They [Truss & Kwarteng] are a textbook example of why friendship can be a terrible basis for relationships at the top of government, especially when it is fused in a mutual intoxication with recklessly utopian theories and a contempt for the opinions of anyone outside a little echo chamber occupied by a narrow sect of believers. The result was the maxi-disaster of the mini-budget that has inflicted so much financial carnage on Britain and reputational ruin on the Conservative party.
Mr Kwarteng’s credibility is in shreds, but he will have a large and enthusiastic audience if he decides to repay Ms Truss in the same coin. In the view of one former Tory cabinet minister: “If he turns on her, he can destroy her.”
Mr Hunt’s appointment is a belated recognition – far too belated to revise opinions of Ms Truss among Tory MPs – that she ought to have reached out to other factions of her party when she first became prime minister. Mr Hunt is going to have to display a touch of genius if he is to come up with a formula that restores faith in Britain in debt and currency markets, ameliorates the discontent of the public or at least prevents it from getting any more severe, and soothes the furies of Tory MPs.
A longstanding ally of Mr Hunt thinks: “He’s in a very powerful position. She’s going to have to do what the Treasury says. I don’t think she’s got any choice.” For connoisseurs of political ironies, this is one to savour. Ms Truss is now trussed. She is the prisoner of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, the very institutions she used to deride as “bean counters”.
Even at his grisly end, Boris Johnson still had a constituency among Conservative MPs made up of those who thought they were better off keeping him in Number 10. There is no remaining constituency for Ms Truss. If Tory MPs possessed a wand they could wave to make her vanish, they’d instantly use it.
I think she’s finished. The outstanding question is how they will finish her off. It won’t be a regicide. It will be an act of euthanasia.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
Thatcher cut the top rate to 60% then 40% from 83% ie she NEVER raised the top rate of income tax.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
The destination is often more important than the direction of travel. A rise to 50% would still be well below Thatcher’s 60%.
Rich people don’t live in the UK for our excellent weather, beautiful new towns or excitingly vast amounts of immigration
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
They live here because it's a nice place where they can enjoy their wealth without being kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government.
That is worth paying for.
But you can get the same in - eg - multiple EU countries with better weather and fewer “social issues”. And quite a few non EU countries
Britain is still - on balance - a desirable place to live. This is especially true in london (if you’re rich). But we are getting perilously close to the position where the negatives will outweigh the positives
I suppose we can console ourselves that global instability means almost everywhere feels a bit fucked
If you're rich, Britain is an incredible place to live.
If you're rich the US, Singapore or Switzerland is even more incredible than the UK to live, especially if the UK has a 50% top income tax rate
George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS
I photographed it yesterday afternoon
His last drink?
Superb!
Yes. Bang on
I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history
So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”
He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober
Have any PMs been sober?
Truss strikes me as a one-glass-on-wine-max type. May didn't drink, because of health, IIRC.
The new PM seemed to go out of his way to say on LK show the poorest would be at the forefront of his mind when designing the new Budget.
So he can't possibly not uprate benefits by inflation can he?
I’m a bit stumped as to what the heck he is going to do to be honest. I think a rise in the additional rate is going to be likely (height of irony). But it doesn’t raise that much. He could perhaps tweak IHT (though I suspect not given low IHT is a Tory shibboleth).
Honestly I am starting to wonder if the higher rate is going to go up - going to be very unpopular with middle class professionals/homeowners if so.
If Hunt increases it back to the level Brown had it and which Osborne cut back what is the point of voting Tory?
It would still be well below the 60% rate Thatcher accepted until 1988.
Thatcher cut it to 40% by the time she left office from the 83% Labour had left it at in 1979. Indeed the 60% rate was still a Thatcherite cut compared to the last Labour government
The point is that 60% was a rate Thatcher felt able to live with for 9 years of her time in office.
IIRC she wanted it at 50% and it was Lawson who convinced her to go for 40%. I've always thought 50% was the appropriate level (including NIC). Nobody making >150k in the UK could do it without the stability (sic) and infrastructure offered by the British state so it seems reasonable to split the lottery winnings of being a high earner 50/50 with the state apparatus that makes it possible.
You do realise a 50% top rate of income tax is higher than the top rate in France, Germany, the US and Canada and the G7 average? It would therefore see investors and the wealthy leave the City and the UK
I do realise that yes. I think it's the appropriate level but I would make sure it wouldn't prompt that kind of exodus before implementing it. 50% including NIC isn't much higher than what we have now, of course. In my experience wealthy folk (of whom I know many) are more worried about wealth taxes than anything else. They also worry more broadly about a kind of pitchforks scenario - they know full well that they have been doing very nicely while the average person hasn't - and I think they'd mostly be happy to pay a bit more to stop the peasants from revolting.
George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS
I photographed it yesterday afternoon
His last drink?
Superb!
Yes. Bang on
I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history
So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”
He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober
That is an impressive feat to just quit like that given how bad he was.
Ringo Starr and his wife woke up one morning in the late 80s. The house was trashed and I believe Mrs Starr had sustained injuries. Neither had any memory of what had happened.
They immediately checked into rehab and have been sober ever since.
Rising taxes and interest rates. Falling real wages and spending. That's the next few years, folks, whoever is in power, whatever they do. Can maybe finesse one of the four, if minded to, but at the cost of making the other three much worse.
George Bush signs a bottle of wine. C’mon. Use your IMAGINATIONS
I photographed it yesterday afternoon
His last drink?
Superb!
Yes. Bang on
I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history
So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”
He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober
So it's the actual bottle, he left there?
On my US trip I met someone who told me that his father had quite a serious bowel problem and often had to go in a hurry; during engagements this wasn't always possible and this guy had once cleaned him up behind the scenes mid-engagement, and received a set of presidential cufflinks by way of reward.
Comments
1. Japanese
2. Italian
3. Indian
Worst...
1. British
2. Polish
3. Bulgarian
The Netherlands have just beaten the UAE in the cricket (well 20/20) World Cup, thanks to a late stand by two Dutchmen, called Edwards and Pringle!
Green, my arse.
- @CrispinBlunt becomes the first ToryMP to publicly call for Liz Truss to go and to go “now”
- @George_Osborne PM likely gone “before Christmas”
- @MattHancock says PM can survive if she acts now
Plus @edballs @Madz_Grant @JasmineCC_95 @afneil
https://twitter.com/louisa_compton/status/1581600711996936193?s=20&t=Ev3qLbiNVkIIQesbNve_mQ
The US is the largest provider of military assistance to Ukraine, having committed $17.5 billion since the start of the Biden administration. $16.8 billion of that assistance has been provided since February 2022.
The UK has committed £2.3 billion in military assistance to Ukraine thus far and has made a pledge to match that assistance in 2023. The UK is also hosting a training programme, supported by a number of allies, with the aim of training 10,000 new and existing Ukrainian personnel within 120 days.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/
The pledged 3% defence spending might not be enough but Liz Truss has already kicked it into the long grass. It is 3% "by the end of the decade" which is after at least two general elections.
Substitute Indian for French and see how it reads.
I personally think the energy price cap is too universal a measure and could be tiered such that the current level is means tested and everyone we keep has a slightly higher cap.
The first of these is a political no brainer (ah, I see the problem...) while the ship has probably sailed on the latter.
What is this and why is it politically and historically significant?
There are enough clues in this picture for a smart person to work it out
Nein klein googlein!
They simply served as enablers for the ERG "bastards" wing of the Tories and we had a brief glimpse of the the sort of Brexit they had in mind last week. Levelling up and help for the poor and marginalised wasn't a noticeable feature.
A totally different scenario where a Farage party got 25% and the Tories got just 10%, so the Farage party were the main opposition to Labour and got most non Labour seats
But this is a lot more important than just a signature…
Would piss off the Tory voter coalition, but raise a lot of money.
Paywall but gist in url.
terrible news.
Food on Indian Navy ships is amazing... if you're an officer...
An alternative would be the cap only applies in the first X energy usage. That might make people more price sensitive while giving relief on essential usage. Hard to fairly calculate X, but I think better to try than give unlimited support to the price insensitive.
I don’t think we can successfully close the entire gap with tax increases. Which was one of the limiting assumptions in my original post…
I've had some Chardonnays there that I would put up against French wines at 10x the price.
A totally different scenario from Hunt raising the top rate of income tax back to the 50% Brown left in 2010 and also a higher top income tax rate than the 40% Thatcher left in 1990
I can see Ajax canned, MRSS down to two hulls, CR3 trimmed and F-35B acquisitions halted at 47 a/c.
Tempest will endure for vanity reasons.
Worth keeping an eye on PRS REIT (PRSR) share price to put numbers to the anecdotes.
Why take the risk of capital loss and below inflation returns and the potential for voids and the hassle and agents fees etc, when better and easier options are available?
Looks to me like a no-brainier to get out of BTL, while you still have a chance of getting a decent price.
This is honestly a doozie. It is arguable this signature in this precise context changed history
If taxes sharply rise - and rich people believe they will rise further - these higher rate payers will simply leave
The trouble with the small state, thatcherite libertarian wing of the conservative party is that they are very far away from where the country is on economics and the role of the state. Liz Truss is already the most unpopular leader in modern political history, and her economic ideas have also been rejected by the markets, and had to be stopped when it became clear that they would lead to Venuzuela like chaos if they were actually implemented. This is not the basis for any sort of new populist revolt. When the populist revolt comes my best guess is the flashpoint will be on issues of race and cultural identity, with economics being secondary to this. The 'liberal' post Brexit immigration policies of the conservative party, advanced by Johnson, are more likely to be the cause of a right wing revolt than anything to do with tax cuts.
Trying to evict a tenant who has stopped paying rent, and puts up any kind of defence, is hell on earth.
A tax raising, spending cutting Tory government will be far more unpopular with the public and the base than a tax cutting and spending cutting Tory government. A tax cutting and spending rising government would be most popular but that is not always economically viable.
So the Tory vote likely continues to decline even further. The destination of 50% would also still be higher than the 40% destination Thatcher arrived at by the time she left office
Otherwise we'll be cutting education (reduces future growth), infrastructure (reduces future growth) or else all the pain will be felt by working aged people who are struggling to get by.
That is worth paying for.
I photographed it yesterday afternoon
Edit: one BritishArmy unit in Former Yugoslavia ended up with an outbreak of scurvy, the food in the field was so crap.
I actually watched the Laffer Curve in action - a rich American relative, living here, binned his tax lawyers and just paid the top rate when it changed. He said that he liked publica services, but paying more than 50% just felt too much.
That way, you can recruit new Conservative voters, rather than see your support withering away.
Like many things, it is an equation, with quality of life and taxes as some of the variables.
issues”. And quite a few non EU countries
Britain is still - on balance - a desirable place to live. This is especially true in london (if you’re rich). But we are getting perilously close to the position where the negatives will outweigh the positives
I suppose we can console ourselves that global instability means almost everywhere feels a bit fucked
When Bulgarian toothpaste was unavailable they used to spread boot polish on bread, scrape it off and eat the bread. 50/50 on instant nausea or headache.
Got loads of other dits from him but the pb bedwetters would not be able to handle them.
For goodness sake!!
Not sure if it’s that non-dom status became more onerous to maintain, or simply that a lot of rich people have already left sclerotic Britain.
We are currently at 40% GDP.
2020 GDP was 2.7 trillion so 3% is £81bn.
The deficit is £120bn
So you would be increasing the tax take well above the highest level in recorded history.
I don’t think that is possible without negatively impacting economic performance
(FWIW I looked two not-that-random countries. Sweden is 43% GDP and France 45%. So it is theoretically possible but would be a fundamental change in our political/economic structure - and I don’t think it is achievable in that we would then need to limit any future government spending increases to GDP growth and I don’t think we have the political maturity to do that)
So he can't possibly not uprate benefits by inflation can he?
Taking a family of four round the cultural stuff in Rome and Paris is a serious cost.
Plus the quality - the state of most of the stuff in Rome is staggeringly bad.
Yes. Bang on
I am staying at the remarkable Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. A genuinely remarkable place in terms of American/Wild West history
So. Apparently the young George W Bush came here in 1989. He got - as was his wont - completely shitfaced. He woke up with barely a memory of the night before. He just knew it was bad. So he finished off the last of the wine left in his bottle - for breakfast - then he signed it. Why? Because he said “I am never drinking again and I want to remember this moment”
He was true to his word. Never drank again. Went on to invade Iraq when sober. Sober presidents are bad. Donald trump is sober
The problem with NIC is how much it has been mucked up over the years. Roll it into income tax.
The ambition of the state should be that the rules for living in this country should fit on a small set of postcards. Setting tax at a sensible, easy to understand and hard to avoid level is in my top 10.
They [Truss & Kwarteng] are a textbook example of why friendship can be a terrible basis for relationships at the top of government, especially when it is fused in a mutual intoxication with recklessly utopian theories and a contempt for the opinions of anyone outside a little echo chamber occupied by a narrow sect of believers. The result was the maxi-disaster of the mini-budget that has inflicted so much financial carnage on Britain and reputational ruin on the Conservative party.
Mr Kwarteng’s credibility is in shreds, but he will have a large and enthusiastic audience if he decides to repay Ms Truss in the same coin. In the view of one former Tory cabinet minister: “If he turns on her, he can destroy her.”
Mr Hunt’s appointment is a belated recognition – far too belated to revise opinions of Ms Truss among Tory MPs – that she ought to have reached out to other factions of her party when she first became prime minister. Mr Hunt is going to have to display a touch of genius if he is to come up with a formula that restores faith in Britain in debt and currency markets, ameliorates the discontent of the public or at least prevents it from getting any more severe, and soothes the furies of Tory MPs.
A longstanding ally of Mr Hunt thinks: “He’s in a very powerful position. She’s going to have to do what the Treasury says. I don’t think she’s got any choice.” For connoisseurs of political ironies, this is one to savour. Ms Truss is now trussed. She is the prisoner of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, the very institutions she used to deride as “bean counters”.
Even at his grisly end, Boris Johnson still had a constituency among Conservative MPs made up of those who thought they were better off keeping him in Number 10. There is no remaining constituency for Ms Truss. If Tory MPs possessed a wand they could wave to make her vanish, they’d instantly use it.
I think she’s finished. The outstanding question is how they will finish her off. It won’t be a regicide. It will be an act of euthanasia.
Honestly I am starting to wonder if the higher rate is going to go up - going to be very unpopular with middle class professionals/homeowners if so.
Edit: CGT maybe?
They immediately checked into rehab and have been sober ever since.
That's the next few years, folks, whoever is in power, whatever they do.
Can maybe finesse one of the four, if minded to, but at the cost of making the other three much worse.
On my US trip I met someone who told me that his father had quite a serious bowel problem and often had to go in a hurry; during engagements this wasn't always possible and this guy had once cleaned him up behind the scenes mid-engagement, and received a set of presidential cufflinks by way of reward.