I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Maybe he could list out all the other manifesto commitments that Johnson / Truss saw fit to ditch.
What a plonker. Hunt should brief that the Cabinet Office does not speak for Treasury. The last thing we need is Tory MPs making up budget statements on the fly.
A potential candidate for the next leadership election, or at least an ally of one.
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
And new entrants have to join the Euro.
In theory, but not in practice.
The Euro does seem a more robust store of value compared to our serially debased coinage.
I believe it was shown some time ago that a life of smoking and obesity was actually cheaper for the State all things considered than one without. Horrible to think of it, but it's the difference between popping off at 73 from the ciggies or lingering till 93 with various ailments and dementia to boot.
Nothing wrong with being long-lived if you are healthy, and we are more than units of economic production. We are parents, grandparents, the stalwarts of churches and of voluntary organisations. A nation that dis-respects its older folk is a nation that hates itself.
As we saw during the pandemic, there were those perfectly willing to see older people die by the thousand to keep "economic growth". It turns out all they needed to do to kill off "growth" was wait for Kwasi Kwarteng.
Seems Truss and allies are trying to regain power from Hunt this evening by wandering about making all sorts of uncosted promises on spending and challenging him to slap them down tomorrow...
Let's play Blankety Blank:
"There is [blank] money left."
The Treasury, via their representative on Earth, will have to slap everyone down. God knows what happens when all the public sector unions go out on strike.
2 words, 4 letters and 3. first word starting with F?
I have reported previously from Sale's surprisingly middle class chippy. Today I am in the 'other' chippy where things are earthier. The talk is of trips to America. It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes. I'm gobsmacked. It's the first time in the UK I've heard anything positive said about the Republicans or negative about the Democrats. These are not views I'd expect to hear in the middle class chippy!
I have reported previously from Sale's surprisingly middle class chippy. Today I am in the 'other' chippy where things are earthier. The talk is of trips to America. It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes. I'm gobsmacked. It's the first time in the UK I've heard anything positive said about the Republicans or negative about the Democrats. These are not views I'd expect to hear in the middle class chippy!
With a £ buying just a $ and some useless coins, I am impressed that you mix among chip shop customers who can still afford it.
As a general rule American cities are horrible, and the wilderness areas much nicer. New York and San Fancisco are exceptions, but far too many social problems on Americas streets, and armed social problems. Small town America is often Republican, but just as worth avoiding.
I was about to say the same thing. This is just a version of “the cities are dirty and scary but the countryside’s delightful” which tourist have been saying since the Easycart opened a twice weekly route to Niniveh.
Octopus Energy keep trying to increase my direct debit payments. They can fuck right off.
They've suggested lowering ours. We've had an extension over the summer, so have instead opted to wait and see (although, even though bigger space, it could well be that the insulation improvements decrease energy use).
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Trying to get rid of smoking strikes me, philosophically, as not being so very different from the enforcement of compulsory seat belts in cars. Both policies take a severe and wholly preventable health hazard (respectively, cancer sticks, and being flung through the windscreen and onto the tarmac,) and aim to eliminate it. The result of elimination would harm nobody (unless you count the remaining shareholders of the tobacco industry, and specialists paid to scoop blood and brains off of dual carriageways and bag them up for disposal,) help an awful lot of people, and save the healthcare system prodigious sums of desperately needed money.
How to tackle obesity is a much more complex and debatable task, but one thing is for sure: doing nothing and abandoning the problem to individual judgment alone clearly isn't working. And if we, as a nation, could ever afford to carry upon our creaking backs and shoulders the huge legions of fatties, and their consequent disabilities and care needs, we certainly can't now.
Lost my nerve a bit over Truss exiting before year end and did partial cash out.
Just starting to get the feeling that they may decide to keep the Regency going until next year just to pause and draw breath before they all decide what next.
Truss wont be going anywhere soon. Jeremy Hunt is the effective PM with Truss as a powerless figurehead. Its a solution that suits everyone at the moment in the tory party. Not good for the country sure but with the tories its always party over country
This tragic Cabinet doesn't suit the country.
Just bite the bullet and get shot so we can have a clear out.
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
Ah yes, the one in which Treasury predicted failing growth, Cameron hinted at European war, and Obama suggested no US trade deal would be forthcoming.
Well, they got that wrong!
The treasury predicted a massive recession as an immediate result of the vote going the wrong way - It never happened.
And if you think the current war has anything to do with Brexit then you are as dumb as the conspiracy morons who claim it is all because of the nasty EU being friendly to Ukraine. Not a great crowd to align yourself with but par for the course for you recently.
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
And new entrants have to join the Euro.
In theory, but not in practice.
The Euro does seem a more robust store of value compared to our serially debased coinage.
Octopus Energy keep trying to increase my direct debit payments. They can fuck right off.
They've suggested lowering ours. We've had an extension over the summer, so have instead opted to wait and see (although, even though bigger space, it could well be that the insulation improvements decrease energy use).
I’ve got up to a credit balance of 2k now. Starting to become a credit risk.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
Risk to banks means they're more conservative on lending, but they're more conservative in a manner that aids first time buyers.
If you're using your savings to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your savings has improved. If you're using your equity in your home or homes to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your equity has worsened.
Even in house price falls, the housing market doesn't seize up completely. During such periods there are typically fewer house sales, but those house sales are dominated more by first time buyers who now find their savings are sufficient to buy a home, rather than existing home owners whose equity isn't there at the moment.
They basically don’t lend as much and/or require higher deposits. On average that doesn’t favour FTBs.
Love the determination of those with house price equity to claim that artificially inflated high prices are better for first time buyers rather than low prices. Not sure if they have managed to convince themselves of this absurdity or just don't want to admit that they want their own positions protected by the state.
It's a matter of timing.
Lower prices will make things better, but in the short term deposit requirements are increasing, so they're actually worse.
Pity the poor people who were going to be ready to buy next year. They'll have to wait some more.
Pay £500k this year or £400k in 2024? Which is better?
If you want a home to live in, rather than as an investment, and can pay the mortgage repayments, then I'd take an extra two years living in my own home, able to plant what I like in the garden, etc.
In which case you probably earn enough that the prices are not that important and you would get a mortgage comfortably in a recession!
It's the increased deposit requirements that will cause a delay. There are worse problems to have, but it makes buying a house next spring/summer look more difficult. I thought I was only going to be moving in with the in-laws to reach the six-month residency requirement.
I have reported previously from Sale's surprisingly middle class chippy. Today I am in the 'other' chippy where things are earthier. The talk is of trips to America. It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes. I'm gobsmacked. It's the first time in the UK I've heard anything positive said about the Republicans or negative about the Democrats. These are not views I'd expect to hear in the middle class chippy!
With a £ buying just a $ and some useless coins, I am impressed that you mix among chip shop customers who can still afford it.
As a general rule American cities are horrible, and the wilderness areas much nicer. New York and San Fancisco are exceptions, but far too many social problems on Americas streets, and armed social problems. Small town America is often Republican, but just as worth avoiding.
I was about to say the same thing. This is just a version of “the cities are dirty and scary but the countryside’s delightful” which tourist have been saying since the Easycart opened a twice weekly route to Niniveh.
not really ...many american cities are truly dire and even the more interesting ones like new york and san francisco have massive social problems compared to the average european city
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
Ah yes, the one in which Treasury predicted failing growth, Cameron hinted at European war, and Obama suggested no US trade deal would be forthcoming.
Well, they got that wrong!
The treasury predicted a massive recession as an immediate result of the vote going the wrong way - It never happened.
And if you think the current war has anything to do with Brexit then you are as dumb as the conspiracy morons who claim it is all because of the nasty EU being friendly to Ukraine. Not a great crowd to align yourself with but par for the course for you recently.
Lol. I knew that would have your rising, purple-faced, from your club chair.
Sorry, RT, your life’s project has been brutally exposed as bunk. You may wish to examine some of your other deeply held convictions.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Avoiding EARLY deaths might be a consideration.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Presumably you disapprove of the liberalisation of recreational drug laws in America?
No. For one thing, unregulated illegal marijuana - the drug you must be talking about - are WAY more unhealthy than regulated legal marijuana.
And please stop projecting YOUR notions, prejudices, etc., etc. onto MY brain.
It is not projection to respond to what is written below your name and point out hypocrisy and muddled thinking.
In contrast to your rose-tinted view, the evidence is that legalisation has increased the prevalence of highly concentrated cannabis on the market in your state.
Seattle Times: Researchers warn of mental health risks of high-potency cannabis
When cannabis was legalized for recreational use in Washington beginning in 2014, extracted cannabis, which includes concentrates, made up about 9% of the market. Concentrates now make up 35%, according to 2020 data from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
You may also note that in past "researchers" claimed tobacco was good for smokers?
Anyway, what does your contribution to do with the REAL subject which is Coffey's idiot anti-health policies?
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
And new entrants have to join the Euro.
In theory, but not in practice.
The Euro does seem a more robust store of value compared to our serially debased coinage.
The UK's position would likely be complicated by it being a reserve currency - which would be an argument for keeping the Pound. The converse argument would be that adding the UK economy to the Euro would add considerable value and stability. I suspect that they would want the Euro strengthened.
Of course, the best solution of all is the UK in the EEA. That way there can be no disruption at the EU level and from the UKs point of view, it gets to keep the Pound and gets access to the Single Market and Free Movement
And so we attain that place where for 90 mins each week a person can lay aside their cares and worries, their tendency to take all the ills of the world as a personal affront, and simply 'be'. It's Bake-Off.
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 21m Sky understands that Graham Brady met Jeremy Hunt today.
Treasury sources say it was just a routine meeting for Graham to brief Jeremy ahead of his 1922 meeting tomorrow.
Yesterday's Brady-Truss meeting was presented as routine as well
Why would the CotE need to have a meeting with SGB? Sounds like he has lots of letters but existing rules prevent action. PMQs tomorrow if it goes badly (how can it not?) may prove the tipping point.
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
Ah yes, the one in which Treasury predicted failing growth, Cameron hinted at European war, and Obama suggested no US trade deal would be forthcoming.
Well, they got that wrong!
The treasury predicted a massive recession as an immediate result of the vote going the wrong way - It never happened.
And if you think the current war has anything to do with Brexit then you are as dumb as the conspiracy morons who claim it is all because of the nasty EU being friendly to Ukraine. Not a great crowd to align yourself with but par for the course for you recently.
Lol. I knew that would have your rising, purple-faced, from your club chair.
Sorry, RT, your life’s project has been brutally exposed as bunk. You may wish to examine some of your other deeply held convictions.
Unless you feel that Boris got the best deal possible, and that his Government was a model of competence ideally suited to managing the early stages of leaving, then nothing has been exposed as anything.
Nor do I see how it is even possible to prove that a medium sized country cannot thrive outside the EU, given that most of the world falls into this category.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Avoiding EARLY deaths might be a consideration.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Presumably you disapprove of the liberalisation of recreational drug laws in America?
No. For one thing, unregulated illegal marijuana - the drug you must be talking about - are WAY more unhealthy than regulated legal marijuana.
And please stop projecting YOUR notions, prejudices, etc., etc. onto MY brain.
It is not projection to respond to what is written below your name and point out hypocrisy and muddled thinking.
In contrast to your rose-tinted view, the evidence is that legalisation has increased the prevalence of highly concentrated cannabis on the market in your state.
Seattle Times: Researchers warn of mental health risks of high-potency cannabis
When cannabis was legalized for recreational use in Washington beginning in 2014, extracted cannabis, which includes concentrates, made up about 9% of the market. Concentrates now make up 35%, according to 2020 data from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
You may also note that in past "researchers" claimed tobacco was good for smokers?
Anyway, what does your contribution to do with the REAL subject which is Coffey's idiot anti-health policies?
Wow, your response to claims about drugs that are legally available in your state causing "an increased risk of experiencing psychosis" involving "a loss of contact with reality, delusions and hallucinations" is to discredit scientific researchers? Incidentally, are you a user?
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
Ah yes, the one in which Treasury predicted failing growth, Cameron hinted at European war, and Obama suggested no US trade deal would be forthcoming.
Well, they got that wrong!
The treasury predicted a massive recession as an immediate result of the vote going the wrong way - It never happened.
And if you think the current war has anything to do with Brexit then you are as dumb as the conspiracy morons who claim it is all because of the nasty EU being friendly to Ukraine. Not a great crowd to align yourself with but par for the course for you recently.
Lol. I knew that would have your rising, purple-faced, from your club chair.
Sorry, RT, your life’s project has been brutally exposed as bunk. You may wish to examine some of your other deeply held convictions.
From my point of view the project has been great. Not sure what you are whining about except your normal gammonish predilection for moaning about everything.
Indeed, given the direction of travel which I think inevitably leads to EFTA, I would say I am going to get everything I wanted out of Brexit whilst you continue to flounder like a beached whale resorting to lying about polls to try and shore up your position.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
You know he might just do exactly that. He is virtually unsackable, and his Party is facing Electoral oblivion anyway, so why not just do the right thing regardless?
Wouldn't bet on it, but he might just think it is the right thing to do and do it.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
Risk to banks means they're more conservative on lending, but they're more conservative in a manner that aids first time buyers.
If you're using your savings to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your savings has improved. If you're using your equity in your home or homes to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your equity has worsened.
Even in house price falls, the housing market doesn't seize up completely. During such periods there are typically fewer house sales, but those house sales are dominated more by first time buyers who now find their savings are sufficient to buy a home, rather than existing home owners whose equity isn't there at the moment.
They basically don’t lend as much and/or require higher deposits. On average that doesn’t favour FTBs.
Love the determination of those with house price equity to claim that artificially inflated high prices are better for first time buyers rather than low prices. Not sure if they have managed to convince themselves of this absurdity or just don't want to admit that they want their own positions protected by the state.
It's a matter of timing.
Lower prices will make things better, but in the short term deposit requirements are increasing, so they're actually worse.
Pity the poor people who were going to be ready to buy next year. They'll have to wait some more.
Pay £500k this year or £400k in 2024? Which is better?
If you want a home to live in, rather than as an investment, and can pay the mortgage repayments, then I'd take an extra two years living in my own home, able to plant what I like in the garden, etc.
In which case you probably earn enough that the prices are not that important and you would get a mortgage comfortably in a recession!
It's the increased deposit requirements that will cause a delay. There are worse problems to have, but it makes buying a house next spring/summer look more difficult. I thought I was only going to be moving in with the in-laws to reach the six-month residency requirement.
So you would really rather repay an extra £100k (25% in my example) plus interest than rent for an extra year?
Two Tory MPs say they will not vote to end triple lock
In a sign of potential trouble brewing ahead for the prime minister, two Tory MPs have declared they will not vote to end the triple lock on state pensions.
Writing on Twitter, Maria Caulfied says: "Pensioners should not be paying the price for the cost-of-living crisis whether caused by the war in Ukraine or mini-budgets."
As we've been reporting, Liz Truss's spokesman earlier refused to rule out sticking to the long-standing Conservative Party policy of annually lifting state pension payments by whichever is the highest out of:
*price rises (in the form of inflation) *the average growth of earnings *2.5% a year
Responding to Caulfield's post, fellow Conservative backbencher Steve Double also said he would not vote to go back on the pledge.
There'll be plenty more where they come from, and (Opposition-backed) revolts will be forthcoming on virtually every other proposal for a significant tax rise or spending cut.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
You know he might just do exactly that. He is virtually unsackable, and his Party is facing Electoral oblivion anyway, so why not just do the right thing regardless?
Wouldn't bet on it, but he might just think it is the right thing to do and do it.
The backbenchers won't stomach it. Olds dominate whatever is left of the Tory core vote. The triple lock stays.
And so we attain that place where for 90 mins each week a person can lay aside their cares and worries, their tendency to take all the ills of the world as a personal affront, and simply 'be'. It's Bake-Off.
Nice to think of Liz Truss forgetting it all until 9.30.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A genuinely excellent idea.
Put third party insurance on it too and remove the compulsion to have your own.....
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A genuinely excellent idea.
Put third party insurance on it too and remove the compulsion to have your own.....
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
In this discussion Hunt is being assigned agency he does not have. There are not the votes in the Commons to remove the triple lock. Labour will vote against as would at least 50 Tory MPs, probably a lot more.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Reading that, I'm left to wonder what would have happened had, instead of choosing May in 2016, the Conservatives had chosen Boris Johnson and he had gone ahead with a Kwarteng-style supply side budget.
Two Tory MPs say they will not vote to end triple lock
In a sign of potential trouble brewing ahead for the prime minister, two Tory MPs have declared they will not vote to end the triple lock on state pensions.
Writing on Twitter, Maria Caulfied says: "Pensioners should not be paying the price for the cost-of-living crisis whether caused by the war in Ukraine or mini-budgets."
As we've been reporting, Liz Truss's spokesman earlier refused to rule out sticking to the long-standing Conservative Party policy of annually lifting state pension payments by whichever is the highest out of:
*price rises (in the form of inflation) *the average growth of earnings *2.5% a year
Responding to Caulfield's post, fellow Conservative backbencher Steve Double also said he would not vote to go back on the pledge.
There'll be plenty more where they come from, and (Opposition-backed) revolts will be forthcoming on virtually every other proposal for a significant tax rise or spending cut.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
A lot of this may be kite flying to see what gets shot down before they actually put pen to paper on a budget.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
Risk to banks means they're more conservative on lending, but they're more conservative in a manner that aids first time buyers.
If you're using your savings to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your savings has improved. If you're using your equity in your home or homes to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your equity has worsened.
Even in house price falls, the housing market doesn't seize up completely. During such periods there are typically fewer house sales, but those house sales are dominated more by first time buyers who now find their savings are sufficient to buy a home, rather than existing home owners whose equity isn't there at the moment.
They basically don’t lend as much and/or require higher deposits. On average that doesn’t favour FTBs.
Love the determination of those with house price equity to claim that artificially inflated high prices are better for first time buyers rather than low prices. Not sure if they have managed to convince themselves of this absurdity or just don't want to admit that they want their own positions protected by the state.
It's a matter of timing.
Lower prices will make things better, but in the short term deposit requirements are increasing, so they're actually worse.
Pity the poor people who were going to be ready to buy next year. They'll have to wait some more.
Pay £500k this year or £400k in 2024? Which is better?
If you want a home to live in, rather than as an investment, and can pay the mortgage repayments, then I'd take an extra two years living in my own home, able to plant what I like in the garden, etc.
In which case you probably earn enough that the prices are not that important and you would get a mortgage comfortably in a recession!
It's the increased deposit requirements that will cause a delay. There are worse problems to have, but it makes buying a house next spring/summer look more difficult. I thought I was only going to be moving in with the in-laws to reach the six-month residency requirement.
So you would really rather repay an extra £100k (25% in my example) plus interest than rent for an extra year?
Well, the interest rate would have been lower too, so the difference in final amount repaid probably wouldn't have been that large. And I've spent the last seven years in rented accommodation, and it turns out that tree saplings are very cheap to buy.
I've got no desire to try and predict the housing market to save money. I simply want to own my own home, and ideally a large enough garden to plant a few trees in. If I need to stump up a larger deposit then that will take longer.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A genuinely excellent idea.
Put third party insurance on it too and remove the compulsion to have your own.....
I do hope that was a joke!
Not at all.
Prevents the freeloaders without insurance costing everyone else and makes the "lifetime payment schedule" flat instead of heavily impacting youngsters and therefore labour mobility. Also removes a load of bureaucracy.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A genuinely excellent idea.
Put third party insurance on it too and remove the compulsion to have your own.....
I do hope that was a joke!
Not at all.
Prevents the freeloaders without insurance costing everyone else and makes the "lifetime payment schedule" flat instead of heavily impacting youngsters and therefore labour mobility. Also removes a load of bureaucracy.
I don't want my risk pooled in with the idiots though.
Reading that, I'm left to wonder what would have happened had, instead of choosing May in 2016, the Conservatives had chosen Boris Johnson and he had gone ahead with a Kwarteng-style supply side budget.
Boris was only ever in Brexit for the power. He had no interest in it at all as an economic or strategic project.
To be honest, the only person I can think of who did was Cummings, in between his various other ravings.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Maybe he could list out all the other manifesto commitments that Johnson / Truss saw fit to ditch.
What a plonker. Hunt should brief that the Cabinet Office does not speak for Treasury. The last thing we need is Tory MPs making up budget statements on the fly.
A potential candidate for the next leadership election, or at least an ally of one.
Seems like only yesterday the Cabinet Office were parking their tanks on the Treasury lawn. Javid walked out, Sunak walked in and the rest is history.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
There'll be plenty more where they come from, and (Opposition-backed) revolts will be forthcoming on virtually every other proposal for a significant tax rise or spending cut.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
But remember spending cuts generally don't need legislation. If you cut a spending department's budget by X% there is no legislation required.
Whereas any tax rise - or in particular a change in a tax rate - does require legislation.
The triple lock is an exception on the spending side - it will require legislation to change as it is written into law.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
You know he might just do exactly that. He is virtually unsackable, and his Party is facing Electoral oblivion anyway, so why not just do the right thing regardless?
Wouldn't bet on it, but he might just think it is the right thing to do and do it.
The backbenchers won't stomach it. Olds dominate whatever is left of the Tory core vote. The triple lock stays.
The way the Tories are heading just now, how many backbenchers do you think they will have left after the next GE? Three or four maybe. Just how big is that core vote now? 15% if they're lucky.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A genuinely excellent idea.
Put third party insurance on it too and remove the compulsion to have your own.....
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
Risk to banks means they're more conservative on lending, but they're more conservative in a manner that aids first time buyers.
If you're using your savings to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your savings has improved. If you're using your equity in your home or homes to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your equity has worsened.
Even in house price falls, the housing market doesn't seize up completely. During such periods there are typically fewer house sales, but those house sales are dominated more by first time buyers who now find their savings are sufficient to buy a home, rather than existing home owners whose equity isn't there at the moment.
They basically don’t lend as much and/or require higher deposits. On average that doesn’t favour FTBs.
It does, since if your deposit is savings then you now have a higher share of the building. 10% of £250k is 12.5% of £200k.
If your deposit is equity from your existing home, then if you have less or negative equity then suddenly you can't outbid the first time buyers.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Richard T (above) says that he is quite pleased with how things are turning out.
Mind you, he appears to post from a remote encampment somewhere in the Guyanan forest.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A genuinely excellent idea.
Put third party insurance on it too and remove the compulsion to have your own.....
I do hope that was a joke!
Not at all.
Prevents the freeloaders without insurance costing everyone else and makes the "lifetime payment schedule" flat instead of heavily impacting youngsters and therefore labour mobility. Also removes a load of bureaucracy.
I don't want my risk pooled in with the idiots though.
/30 years no claims
(Edit: Yes, that's a hostage to fortune)
RCS will obviously know much better but the insurance company are charging you a massive margin, a nationalised scheme could be at cost.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
Without anyone really noticing, rejoining the EU seems now to be the “will of the people”.
I never actually thought I’d see that.
I still don’t think it will happen, but you won’t lose money on Starmer making closer EU relations a key policy plank.
But only a third of the public want to join the single market. "Rejoin" seems to be more "we're unhappy with Brexit" rather than actually rejoining the EU and all it entails.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
Reading that, I'm left to wonder what would have happened had, instead of choosing May in 2016, the Conservatives had chosen Boris Johnson and he had gone ahead with a Kwarteng-style supply side budget.
Boris was only ever in Brexit for the power. He had no interest in it at all as an economic or strategic project.
To be honest, the only person I can think of who did was Cummings, in between his various other ravings.
Perhaps Gove might have gone down the Kwarteng route had he won - we'll never know. That was the time for the radical shift in economic direction presaging our departure from the EU.
That should have been the clear message from LEAVE.
This. 1000x this. These kids want black and white solutions but that is not the real world...
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 1h Public service message to the @JustStop_Oil protestors who’ve shut down the Dartford Crossing. The batteries in the phones and devices you’ve been using to live-stream your protest are made, in part, from… oil.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
Risk to banks means they're more conservative on lending, but they're more conservative in a manner that aids first time buyers.
If you're using your savings to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your savings has improved. If you're using your equity in your home or homes to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your equity has worsened.
Even in house price falls, the housing market doesn't seize up completely. During such periods there are typically fewer house sales, but those house sales are dominated more by first time buyers who now find their savings are sufficient to buy a home, rather than existing home owners whose equity isn't there at the moment.
They basically don’t lend as much and/or require higher deposits. On average that doesn’t favour FTBs.
It does, since if your deposit is savings then you now have a higher share of the building. 10% of £250k is 12.5% of £200k.
If your deposit is equity from your existing home, then if you have less or negative equity then suddenly you can't outbid the first time buyers.
And if your lender now requires 15% of £200k you aren't getting any share of the building at all. This is really not difficult stuff.
From my point of view the project has been great. Not sure what you are whining about except your normal gammonish predilection for moaning about everything.
Indeed, given the direction of travel which I think inevitably leads to EFTA, I would say I am going to get everything I wanted out of Brexit whilst you continue to flounder like a beached whale resorting to lying about polls to try and shore up your position.
If we end up in EFTA, and the EEA , you will rightly be able to crow about it.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A genuinely excellent idea.
Put third party insurance on it too and remove the compulsion to have your own.....
I do hope that was a joke!
Not at all.
Prevents the freeloaders without insurance costing everyone else and makes the "lifetime payment schedule" flat instead of heavily impacting youngsters and therefore labour mobility. Also removes a load of bureaucracy.
I don't want my risk pooled in with the idiots though.
/30 years no claims
(Edit: Yes, that's a hostage to fortune)
RCS will obviously know much better but the insurance company are charging you a massive margin, a nationalised scheme could be at cost.
They probably are, but I see an significant amount of hoon driving round here that I'm not keen on paying for (or encouraging).
Is the mean (third party) payout in the UK a known quantity? Be interesting to know.
Without anyone really noticing, rejoining the EU seems now to be the “will of the people”.
I never actually thought I’d see that.
I still don’t think it will happen, but you won’t lose money on Starmer making closer EU relations a key policy plank.
But only a third of the public want to join the single market. "Rejoin" seems to be more "we're unhappy with Brexit" rather than actually rejoining the EU and all it entails.
Possibly.
I am referring to the Omnisis poll, which has Rejoin at 47% and Stay Out at 33%.
We’ve passed an inflection point. Brexit has lost its totemic power, most feel it has made them personally worse off. The numbers are only heading one way.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
Err it is Tuesday.
It is now...
This is surely a PB first - an argument about what day of the week it is.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
Err it is Tuesday.
It is now...
This is surely a PB first - an argument about what day of the week it is.
This. 1000x this. These kids want black and white solutions but that is not the real world...
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 1h Public service message to the @JustStop_Oil protestors who’ve shut down the Dartford Crossing. The batteries in the phones and devices you’ve been using to live-stream your protest are made, in part, from… oil.
On the plus side we might just solve the addiction kids have with phones this way...
Two Tory MPs say they will not vote to end triple lock
In a sign of potential trouble brewing ahead for the prime minister, two Tory MPs have declared they will not vote to end the triple lock on state pensions.
Writing on Twitter, Maria Caulfied says: "Pensioners should not be paying the price for the cost-of-living crisis whether caused by the war in Ukraine or mini-budgets."
As we've been reporting, Liz Truss's spokesman earlier refused to rule out sticking to the long-standing Conservative Party policy of annually lifting state pension payments by whichever is the highest out of:
*price rises (in the form of inflation) *the average growth of earnings *2.5% a year
Responding to Caulfield's post, fellow Conservative backbencher Steve Double also said he would not vote to go back on the pledge.
There'll be plenty more where they come from, and (Opposition-backed) revolts will be forthcoming on virtually every other proposal for a significant tax rise or spending cut.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
A lot of this may be kite flying to see what gets shot down before they actually put pen to paper on a budget.
It's a fair point.
Nonetheless, which tax rises and spending cuts do we think that the Tories can find a majority for? The big ticket items available (and apologies if I've missed anything) are as follows:
Hike income tax Hike NI Hike VAT Hike property taxes Hike corporation tax Hike capital gains Scrap the triple lock, replace with something much less generous Freeze working age benefits, or uprate by less than inflation Freeze or cut the schools budget Freeze or cut the health budget Freeze or cut the defence budget
You are Chancellor, and you need to keep backbench rebellions on enough of these items below about 35 MPs to produce a budget severe enough to assuage the markets, or else the Opposition will have the numbers to vote it down and your Government will fall. Good luck.
Reading that, I'm left to wonder what would have happened had, instead of choosing May in 2016, the Conservatives had chosen Boris Johnson and he had gone ahead with a Kwarteng-style supply side budget.
Boris was only ever in Brexit for the power. He had no interest in it at all as an economic or strategic project.
To be honest, the only person I can think of who did was Cummings, in between his various other ravings.
Perhaps Gove might have gone down the Kwarteng route had he won - we'll never know. That was the time for the radical shift in economic direction presaging our departure from the EU.
That should have been the clear message from LEAVE.
The point of LEAVE was to stick it to the “elite”, the krauts and the frogs, and make dyspeptic angries feel young again.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
There does seem to be some Tory MPS thinking this would be a good time to lose an election and let Labour clean up the mess.
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
Watching the 7.00 Ch4 News it sounded Dickensian. Serious child starvation is widespread. No wonder Drakeford is furious. Who wouldn't be? On top of a chronic mismanagement of the UKs finances Brexit has cost it 4% of GDP on its own.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Just back from a trip to Town.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
Err it is Tuesday.
It is now...
This is surely a PB first - an argument about what day of the week it is.
I wasn’t feeling too great yesterday, so I spent it all in a chair.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
You know he might just do exactly that. He is virtually unsackable, and his Party is facing Electoral oblivion anyway, so why not just do the right thing regardless?
Wouldn't bet on it, but he might just think it is the right thing to do and do it.
The backbenchers won't stomach it. Olds dominate whatever is left of the Tory core vote. The triple lock stays.
The way the Tories are heading just now, how many backbenchers do you think they will have left after the next GE? Three or four maybe. Just how big is that core vote now? 15% if they're lucky.
Hunt's as free as a bird.
Baxtered the Redfield and Wilton recent poll (Lab 56, Con 20), probably rather lazily and inaccurately, and it seemed to come up with the Tories retaining one seat - South Holland and Deepings. John Hayes can sleep easy.
Without anyone really noticing, rejoining the EU seems now to be the “will of the people”.
I never actually thought I’d see that.
I still don’t think it will happen, but you won’t lose money on Starmer making closer EU relations a key policy plank.
But only a third of the public want to join the single market. "Rejoin" seems to be more "we're unhappy with Brexit" rather than actually rejoining the EU and all it entails.
Possibly.
I am referring to the Omnisis poll, which has Rejoin at 47% and Stay Out at 33%.
We’ve passed an inflection point. Brexit has lost its totemic power, most feel it has made them personally worse off. The numbers are only heading one way.
Well there was some detailed polling about actual opinions rather than the simple binary in out nonsense, and it was not even remotely "we love the EU", the public seems more Eurosceptic than many of the Leavers on here. Only one third want to be in the single market, so even moving closer to the EU will be a challenge, actually rejoining looks essentially infeasible right now.
Comments
The Euro does seem a more robust store of value compared to our serially debased coinage.
How to tackle obesity is a much more complex and debatable task, but one thing is for sure: doing nothing and abandoning the problem to individual judgment alone clearly isn't working. And if we, as a nation, could ever afford to carry upon our creaking backs and shoulders the huge legions of fatties, and their consequent disabilities and care needs, we certainly can't now.
Just bite the bullet and get shot so we can have a clear out.
And if you think the current war has anything to do with Brexit then you are as dumb as the conspiracy morons who claim it is all because of the nasty EU being friendly to Ukraine. Not a great crowd to align yourself with but par for the course for you recently.
Not over the last 5 years.
Sorry, RT, your life’s project has been brutally exposed as bunk. You may wish to examine some of your other deeply held convictions.
What just happened?
This, I think:
- Liz Truss was told yesterday by Graham Brady that she’s toast, but time is needed to find a successor, so she must stay as zombie PM until then
- it’s possible she tried to fight back, possibly by threatening to call an immediate GE /1.
- https://twitter.com/AndrewPRLevi/status/1582439456098770944
Michael Gove's suggestion to rebel Tory MPs who want to push out Liz Truss from Number 10: a 'Papal enclave'.
(From today's Chopper's Politics Newsletter. It's free to sign up. Details above)_ https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1582445391395422208/photo/1
Tobias Ellwood: Yes, brexit isn't working
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1582443829688299520/video/1
@SamCoatesSky
·
21m
Sky understands that Graham Brady met Jeremy Hunt today.
Treasury sources say it was just a routine meeting for Graham to brief Jeremy ahead of his 1922 meeting tomorrow.
Yesterday's Brady-Truss meeting was presented as routine as well
Anyway, what does your contribution to do with the REAL subject which is Coffey's idiot anti-health policies?
Of course, the best solution of all is the UK in the EEA. That way there can be no disruption at the EU level and from the UKs point of view, it gets to keep the Pound and gets access to the Single Market and Free Movement
And it's a crowded list.
Nor do I see how it is even possible to prove that a medium sized country cannot thrive outside the EU, given that most of the world falls into this category.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-63303690
Dumb as a box of rocks. And WAY more nasty.
Indeed, given the direction of travel which I think inevitably leads to EFTA, I would say I am going to get everything I wanted out of Brexit whilst you continue to flounder like a beached whale resorting to lying about polls to try and shore up your position.
The MPs want Sunak.
The members want Sunak.
If they need to have a leadership election, it's dead simple.
20% of MPs required to be nominated - means maximum of four candidates. MPs decide between Final 2. It will take a maximum of four days:
Day 1: Nominations
Day 2: Vote Round 1
Day 3: Vote Round 2 (if necessary)
Day 4: Vote Round 3 (if necessary)
https://www.eurointelligence.com/column/the-next-u-turn
Wouldn't bet on it, but he might just think it is the right thing to do and do it.
Two Tory MPs say they will not vote to end triple lock
In a sign of potential trouble brewing ahead for the prime minister, two Tory MPs have declared they will not vote to end the triple lock on state pensions.
Writing on Twitter, Maria Caulfied says: "Pensioners should not be paying the price for the cost-of-living crisis whether caused by the war in Ukraine or mini-budgets."
As we've been reporting, Liz Truss's spokesman earlier refused to rule out sticking to the long-standing Conservative Party policy of annually lifting state pension payments by whichever is the highest out of:
*price rises (in the form of inflation)
*the average growth of earnings
*2.5% a year
Responding to Caulfield's post, fellow Conservative backbencher Steve Double also said he would not vote to go back on the pledge.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63278993
There'll be plenty more where they come from, and (Opposition-backed) revolts will be forthcoming on virtually every other proposal for a significant tax rise or spending cut.
Thinking of things that way, one wonders if we may end up getting a General Election because the Chancellor finds it impossible to formulate a budget that enough of his own backbenchers are prepared to support.
And then having a screaming fit.
"PMQs. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.........."
Which is all fine and well, except there will be only 50 of them left...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1582303415576715265
VED is pointless, though.
🔎 Big Read: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/inside-tory-party-despair-replace-liz-truss-1919213?ito=social_itw_theipaper&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1666111140
I've got no desire to try and predict the housing market to save money. I simply want to own my own home, and ideally a large enough garden to plant a few trees in. If I need to stump up a larger deposit then that will take longer.
Prevents the freeloaders without insurance costing everyone else and makes the "lifetime payment schedule" flat instead of heavily impacting youngsters and therefore labour mobility. Also removes a load of bureaucracy.
/30 years no claims
(Edit: Yes, that's a hostage to fortune)
I can see that going down fantastically well...are you a sleeper agent for Farage to make a comeback?
He had no interest in it at all as an economic or strategic project.
To be honest, the only person I can think of who did was Cummings, in between his various other ravings.
This Tory cult really are revolting.
Whereas any tax rise - or in particular a change in a tax rate - does require legislation.
The triple lock is an exception on the spending side - it will require legislation to change as it is written into law.
Hunt's as free as a bird.
If your deposit is equity from your existing home, then if you have less or negative equity then suddenly you can't outbid the first time buyers.
Mind you, he appears to post from a remote encampment somewhere in the Guyanan forest.
Busiest Monday night I've experienced since before Covid.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/oct/18/bbc-prepares-secret-scripts-for-possible-use-in-winter-blackouts?CMP=share_btn_tw
That should have been the clear message from LEAVE.
Ed Conway
@EdConwaySky
·
1h
Public service message to the @JustStop_Oil protestors who’ve shut down the Dartford Crossing.
The batteries in the phones and devices you’ve been using to live-stream your protest are made, in part, from… oil.
Is the mean (third party) payout in the UK a known quantity? Be interesting to know.
I am referring to the Omnisis poll, which has Rejoin at 47% and Stay Out at 33%.
We’ve passed an inflection point.
Brexit has lost its totemic power, most feel it has made them personally worse off. The numbers are only heading one way.
Nonetheless, which tax rises and spending cuts do we think that the Tories can find a majority for? The big ticket items available (and apologies if I've missed anything) are as follows:
Hike income tax
Hike NI
Hike VAT
Hike property taxes
Hike corporation tax
Hike capital gains
Scrap the triple lock, replace with something much less generous
Freeze working age benefits, or uprate by less than inflation
Freeze or cut the schools budget
Freeze or cut the health budget
Freeze or cut the defence budget
You are Chancellor, and you need to keep backbench rebellions on enough of these items below about 35 MPs to produce a budget severe enough to assuage the markets, or else the Opposition will have the numbers to vote it down and your Government will fall. Good luck.
They should have just started a viagra course.
It was therefore a satter day.
It went about as well as you would have expected.