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.
I am not so sure about that. Of course you may well be right but I think the mood at the moment is such that he could get away with it. Indeed it is worth remembering that when the vote on the Triple lock came before the house last September, Labour did not support retaining it. Instead they abstained. So there is at least some element of realism at work there.
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.
The original referendum was “simple binary nonsense”.
Read my original post. I’m not predicting “Rejoin”. If I made a prediction, it would be closer to Wolfgang Munchau’s.
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.
They should have just started a viagra course.
Meanwhile Remain was to overcome deep self-hatred and cultural cringe and to give insecure man-babies the feel of still suckling onto Momma's bosom.
See? We can all indulge in cheap pop psychology to castigated our opponents.
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.
Hence the problem.
As a country, we're not overall keen on where we are. But we're also not overall keen on the genuine difficulties that would follow from improving our situation.
What we all really want is a no downside/ considerable upside (for us), cake'n'eat it solution. But the rotters across the Channel are still refusing to make that happen.
It echoes Kwartengomics (RIP). It would have been lovely to cut taxes, not cut spending, and have someone lend us the money to make that work. But the UK can't make others act in ways that are in our interest but not theirs.
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.
Which is where we would be now if parliament had done its job after 2016.
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.
They should have just started a viagra course.
Meanwhile Remain was to overcome deep self-hatred and cultural cringe and to give insecure man-babies the feel of still suckling onto Momma's bosom.
See? We can all indulge in cheap pop psychology to castigated our opponents.
I must admit I have no actual memory of “suckling onto Momma’s bosom”. I was weaned too early.
I guess, in your case, the memories are somewhat fresher.
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.
They should have just started a viagra course.
Says the man who think Putin invaded Ukraine because of Brexit. Your delusions are fascinating to observe.
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 € was 1.6 to the £ when created, around 1.3 during the Brexit campaign and fairly stable at 1.15 or so since.
While some argue that debasing the currency is a way of increasing competitiveness, I see it as a way of dodging the real issues of why our exporters struggle. Serial devaluation is an addiction not a solution.
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
I am in favour of a punitive wealth tax on public sector pensions that provide an income in excess of the average wage. Tax that until the pips squeak and use it to fund pensions for those in the private sector
That has been done with the Annual allowance and lifetime allowances. It is why a 56 year old colleague of mine is going part time. She cannot afford to pay the tax on her NHS pension.
Taxing contributions and taxing pensions are both ideas, but are separate ones.
Your 56 year old colleague isn't in receipt of a pension yet surely? Taxing pensions should mean taxing the income from pensioners, who are already pensioners.
I wouldn't punitively tax them. Just ensure they pay their fair share of tax that matches what a young graduate on the same income gets taxed.
This is surely the obvious answer.
Keep the Triple Lock but make sure everybody pays the same (income-related) rates of NI+Income Tax on their income, regardless of where that income has come from, regardless of how old they are.
I agree. Some pensioners really do need their pensions to rise with inflation. I am sure someone will tell me, but what would be the downside of keeping the Triple Lock but extending NI to everyone? Would that not protect poor pensioners while ensuring that better off ones like myself contribute more? Could they not then combine NI and income tax to simplify things?
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.
They should have just started a viagra course.
Says the man who think Putin invaded Ukraine because of Brexit. Your delusions are fascinating to observe.
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.
No it isn't, the poll earlier today showed not even most Labour voters want to rejoin the EU and single market, only a majority of LD voters do.
The most popular option from all voters was a closer relationship with the EU but still outside the EU and single market, which as you say is as far as Starmer will go now
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.
But if your deposit needs to be 20%, instead of 10%, then in your example you need to save another £15k to have a large enough deposit.
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.
Wave your lipstick around as much as you like, it’s still a pig….
Don’t assume, even now, even after everything, that Britain will elect a Labour government next time. Sir Keir Starmer would make a fine prime minister. From afar, in the US, he always struck me as Joe Biden-like in his low standing among pundits who over-index charisma. But the exorbitant privilege of having Liz Truss as an opponent will soon end. And his party has liabilities of its own that time will expose. Vestiges of the hard left survive in its grassroots, its backbenches, its bureaucracy. Little in recent UK history suggests the soft left is much more electable. Midterm polls, like sterling, are only worth so much.
Even if Labour wins, there is no social democratic Shangri-La at hand. What has died in Britain over recent weeks is the progressive dream, not just the libertarian one. With little money to spend, the point of the next Labour government is — what, exactly?
Tax the rich till the pips squeak! ...which solves the 'little money to spend' issue. ;-)
Yep. Wealth tax, come on down! Not one for the manifesto though. Labour have to win first. Play it safe. Just hang all the mess on the Tories and rely on a competent articulate Leader and Team and Time For A Change.
If it doesn't work, if the Cons somehow win again, even after all this, what it will mean is that the British people for some deep psychic reason want - no need - their government to be called Conservative rather than Labour.
In which case it will be time for all true socialists - inc me and you - to join the Conservative Party and get cracking on moulding it into something we can support.
I am in favour of a punitive wealth tax on public sector pensions that provide an income in excess of the average wage. Tax that until the pips squeak and use it to fund pensions for those in the private sector
That has been done with the Annual allowance and lifetime allowances. It is why a 56 year old colleague of mine is going part time. She cannot afford to pay the tax on her NHS pension.
Taxing contributions and taxing pensions are both ideas, but are separate ones.
Your 56 year old colleague isn't in receipt of a pension yet surely? Taxing pensions should mean taxing the income from pensioners, who are already pensioners.
I wouldn't punitively tax them. Just ensure they pay their fair share of tax that matches what a young graduate on the same income gets taxed.
This is surely the obvious answer.
Keep the Triple Lock but make sure everybody pays the same (income-related) rates of NI+Income Tax on their income, regardless of where that income has come from, regardless of how old they are.
I agree. Some pensioners really do need their pensions to rise with inflation. I am sure someone will tell me, but what would be the downside of keeping the Triple Lock but extending NI to everyone? Would that not protect poor pensioners while ensuring that better off ones like myself contribute more? Could they not then combine NI and income tax to simplify things?
Yes, yes, yes and yes. No idea why this has just been done, it's totally fair, and unless it is opposed by Labour in an attempt to grab the grannies from the Tories (which I don't see), it would be fairly voter proof.
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.
Wave your lipstick around as much as you like, it’s still a pig….
At least he has gone quiet on the climate change denialism of late.
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.
Wave your lipstick around as much as you like, it’s still a pig….
At least he has gone quiet on the climate change denialism of late.
Can any scientific bods help - is there an optimal level of CO2 in the air for plants to grow? I read a comment to the affect that we had suboptimally low levels of CO2 in the air for plants to thrive. It made me wonder whether there is an affect, and whether areas with high levels of CO2 emissions also see more vigorous plant growth.
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.
Wave your lipstick around as much as you like, it’s still a pig….
At least he has gone quiet on the climate change denialism of late.
Can any scientific bods help - is there an optimal level of CO2 in the air for plants to grow? I read a comment to the affect that we had suboptimally low levels of CO2 in the air for plants to thrive. It made me wonder whether there is an affect, and whether areas with high levels of CO2 emissions also see more vigorous plant growth.
First bit of the answer is that some greenhouse horticulture deliberately pumps extra carbon dioxide into greenhouses to get faster plant growth.
Next bit is that lots of things feed into plant growth rate - light, water, carbon dioxide, temperature- and at any given set of conditions, one of them holds the others back. (Which is why shading from solar panels, as long as it isn't complete, doesn't stop pasture growing. Less light but lower temperatures and less water loss can move the calculation to as much growth, if not more.)
Final bit- I'm not sure you would see that in plant growth near (say) coal power stations. I suspect that wind would slosh the carbon dioxide around too quickly for that. But I may be wrong.
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.
They should have just started a viagra course.
Says the man who think Putin invaded Ukraine because of Brexit. Your delusions are fascinating to observe.
Another lie from Tricky Dicky.
LOL. You literally just posted it earlier in this thread. Like I said, delusional.
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.
They should have just started a viagra course.
Says the man who think Putin invaded Ukraine because of Brexit. Your delusions are fascinating to observe.
Another lie from Tricky Dicky.
LOL. You literally just posted it earlier in this thread. Like I said, delusional.
No, I didn’t. The fact you think I did shows have rather impaired levels of comprehension.
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
Comments
"Woman found living in hedge for three years didn’t want to leave her cat"
NEW THREAD
Read my original post. I’m not predicting “Rejoin”. If I made a prediction, it would be closer to Wolfgang Munchau’s.
See? We can all indulge in cheap pop psychology to castigated our opponents.
Would the Tories go after the only group now that’s keeping their polling from hitting single digits !
As a country, we're not overall keen on where we are. But we're also not overall keen on the genuine difficulties that would follow from improving our situation.
What we all really want is a no downside/ considerable upside (for us), cake'n'eat it solution. But the rotters across the Channel are still refusing to make that happen.
It echoes Kwartengomics (RIP). It would have been lovely to cut taxes, not cut spending, and have someone lend us the money to make that work. But the UK can't make others act in ways that are in our interest but not theirs.
I guess, in your case, the memories are somewhat fresher.
The € was 1.6 to the £ when created, around 1.3 during the Brexit campaign and fairly stable at 1.15 or so since.
While some argue that debasing the currency is a way of increasing competitiveness, I see it as a way of dodging the real issues of why our exporters struggle. Serial devaluation is an addiction not a solution.
Next bit is that lots of things feed into plant growth rate - light, water, carbon dioxide, temperature- and at any given set of conditions, one of them holds the others back. (Which is why shading from solar panels, as long as it isn't complete, doesn't stop pasture growing. Less light but lower temperatures and less water loss can move the calculation to as much growth, if not more.)
Final bit- I'm not sure you would see that in plant growth near (say) coal power stations. I suspect that wind would slosh the carbon dioxide around too quickly for that. But I may be wrong.
The fact you think I did shows have rather impaired levels of comprehension.
Which of course surprises nobody.
There is a 1% chance that Truss leads the Conservatives to a 2024 election.
There is maybe a 4% chance that Truss leads the Conservatives to an election at any other time.
.The other 95% is deciding about her exit date.