I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Might not be the worst time to go into equities if you are brave. FTSE250, S&P500 are both down over 20% (S&P, not in sterling terms, but it does at least neutralise the dollar premium). both could of course plummet like paralysed falcons from here on down.
Bond funds are way, way down and this might be a good time to go in. I hate and fear and do not understand bonds, I have just lost a fucking stack in INXG.
There are some 4% for a year deposit fixes around if you can bear the thought of parcelling it into n times £80,000 packages and opening n different bank accounts. Or Hargreaves Lansdown or interactive investor run aggregation services where you send them the wodge and they do the parcelling out.
NOT ADVICE
If you buy an S&P 500 ETF are you exposed to currency risk/benefit or does your return just track the index?
There's hedged and unhedged, according to taste. Hedging costs and I am gloomily certain we are headed to parity and beyond, so I don't bother.
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. It would be a big step forward. And merge the two whilst we're at it, what's the point of the separation?
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Might not be the worst time to go into equities if you are brave. FTSE250, S&P500 are both down over 20% (S&P, not in sterling terms, but it does at least neutralise the dollar premium). both could of course plummet like paralysed falcons from here on down.
Bond funds are way, way down and this might be a good time to go in. I hate and fear and do not understand bonds, I have just lost a fucking stack in INXG.
There are some 4% for a year deposit fixes around if you can bear the thought of parcelling it into n times £80,000 packages and opening n different bank accounts. Or Hargreaves Lansdown or interactive investor run aggregation services where you send them the wodge and they do the parcelling out.
NOT ADVICE
If you buy an S&P 500 ETF are you exposed to currency risk/benefit or does your return just track the index?
There's hedged and unhedged, according to taste. Hedging costs and I am gloomily certain we are headed to parity and beyond, so I don't bother.
thanks. i dont have any money to invest but like to try and understand stuff for when i might.
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. ;-)
Honestly I doubt that will be enough. We've had almost 2 decades of stagnation. Labour will be inheriting a pretty ugly economic outlook with rising borrowing costs. I think they'll have to tailor their ambition a bit.
Mark Carney had a stat in the FT that we used to be 90% of German economy and now we are 70%. Certainly Labour can reorient the economy towards growth, but the damage the Tories have done isn't going to just vanish because we have a sensible government at last.
Not that one would wish to do much to defend this Government - they're awful - but the Carney stat must be wrong. Firstly, given that the UK economy hasn't simply collapsed since 2016, it would rely on truly heroic growth in Germany (especially since they got whacked by the plague like everyone else for much of the period) for the gap to have widened massively like that. Secondly, since the German population is about 25% larger than that of the UK, it implies that British per capita GDP was higher than German per capita GDP in 2016. Unless I'm missing something obvious here, it sounds like bull.
EDIT: I see that @LostPassword has provided the explanation: currency fluctuation. Which means that a drop in the value of the Euro (e.g. if there's another outbreak of the Eurozone sovereign debt shambles) could magically see the UK economy reflate relative to Germany's, but that this would no more be evidence of massive relative UK strength than the currency correction is of massive relative UK weakness.
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. ;-)
Honestly I doubt that will be enough. We've had almost 2 decades of stagnation. Labour will be inheriting a pretty ugly economic outlook with rising borrowing costs. I think they'll have to tailor their ambition a bit.
Mark Carney had a stat in the FT that we used to be 90% of German economy and now we are 70%. Certainly Labour can reorient the economy towards growth, but the damage the Tories have done isn't going to just vanish because we have a sensible government at last.
The comparison is largely because of the decline in the strength of Sterling over the period. At times in 2015 £1=€1.40, compared to about €1.15 recently.
All other things being equal that essentially accounts for all of the decline.
Now, over the long-term, I'd agree that a weak currency reflects a weak economy, but in the short-term a currency can be over or under valued because of market sentiment. It's hard to say how much the decline in Sterling over the period is due to a decline in the British economy and how much is due to a change in market sentiment. Plausibly a bit of both.
What this means is that there's quite a lot of potential to improve things, if we start really tackling the long-term weaknesses in the economy.
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. ;-)
Honestly I doubt that will be enough. We've had almost 2 decades of stagnation. Labour will be inheriting a pretty ugly economic outlook with rising borrowing costs. I think they'll have to tailor their ambition a bit.
Mark Carney had a stat in the FT that we used to be 90% of German economy and now we are 70%. Certainly Labour can reorient the economy towards growth, but the damage the Tories have done isn't going to just vanish because we have a sensible government at last.
Not that one would wish to do much to defend this Government - they're awful - but the Carney stat must be wrong. Firstly, given that the UK economy hasn't simply collapsed since 2016, it would rely on truly heroic growth in Germany (especially since they got whacked by the plague like everyone else for much of the period) for the gap to have widened massively like that. Secondly, since the German population is about 25% larger than that of the UK, it implies that British per capita GDP was higher than German per capita GDP in 2016. Unless I'm missing something obvious here, it sounds like bull.
It was wrong. Not great from a former head of the BOE.
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.
I am sure there are many in the private sector whose hearts are bleeding profusely for the poor thing. What sort of final salary percentage is she looking forward to?
The problem is that the tax is due on money not yet received. Even 60% income tax applies only once income is earned, but tax on annual allowances is calculated and due, even when the money is untouchable.
It is one of many reasons why there is a doubling of retirements this year.
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?
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. ;-)
Honestly I doubt that will be enough. We've had almost 2 decades of stagnation. Labour will be inheriting a pretty ugly economic outlook with rising borrowing costs. I think they'll have to tailor their ambition a bit.
Mark Carney had a stat in the FT that we used to be 90% of German economy and now we are 70%. Certainly Labour can reorient the economy towards growth, but the damage the Tories have done isn't going to just vanish because we have a sensible government at last.
Not that one would wish to do much to defend this Government - they're awful - but the Carney stat must be wrong. Firstly, given that the UK economy hasn't simply collapsed since 2016, it would rely on truly heroic growth in Germany (especially since they got whacked by the plague like everyone else for much of the period) for the gap to have widened massively like that. Secondly, since the German population is about 25% larger than that of the UK, it implies that British per capita GDP was higher than German per capita GDP in 2016. Unless I'm missing something obvious here, it sounds like bull.
It was wrong. Not great from a former head of the BOE.
Our GDP per head was not higher than Germany's in 2016, not at all.
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.
I am sure there are many in the private sector whose hearts are bleeding profusely for the poor thing. What sort of final salary percentage is she looking forward to?
The problem is that the tax is due on money not yet received. Even 60% income tax applies only once income is earned, but tax on annual allowances is calculated and due, even when the money is untouchable.
It is one of many reasons why there is a doubling of retirements this year.
Hunt is aware of this issue at least, hence this recent tweet of his:
What are the Germans thinking? It beggars belief. Russia in particular is a far bigger threat to Germany than the US.
The figures seem to indicate that Germans are in general far less likely to perceive other countries as "major security threats" than Americans are.
Interesting why that would be.
Because they have US protection whereas the US has to look after itself?
Maybe but I reckon it's more about bellicosity v pacifism.
Eg imagine you're posed the question, "which foreign countries iyo are a major physical threat to our nation?"
A bellicose nationalistic person will probably have a long list, because they're generally up for a rumble, they're looking for a fight, whereas a pacifist will be the opposite, the thought of war disgusts them so they'll seek to not classify other countries as military threats.
Ah, the lovely sound of self-righteous victim blaming.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other countries.
Not because of NATOs bellicosity.
You seem to be responding to a post other than mine. Really poor show.
I was merely floating a theory to explain the big 'US vs Germany' difference on that poll William Glen posted.
If your theory is that American bellicosity makes Russia seem a threat, then your theory is wrong.
Russia is a threat, because its a threat, because its invading other nations.
Don't victim blame. NATO is not bellicose or the aggressor here, Russia is.
Well the good news is that isn't my theory. Russia under Putin is more than a threat, it's an absolute menace.
Hey, when I mentioned "nationalistic bellicose people" you didn't take that as a reference to you, did you?
Way too much focus on McCarthy talk about debt limit with @JakeSherman - easily most important news so far is McCarthy announcing opposition to more military aid to Ukraine. This is major global geo-political earthquake if he sticks to this position. He might cave, who knows.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Buy watches? Vintage Rolexes etc. A friend of mine does it. I can't see the appeal myself, but he reckons they only ever go up in value.
Fakes are an issue. A Chinese Rolex used to be a seiko movement in a rolexy looking case, now it is a very precise part-for-part reproduction, all the way down.
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.
I am sure there are many in the private sector whose hearts are bleeding profusely for the poor thing. What sort of final salary percentage is she looking forward to?
The problem is that the tax is due on money not yet received. Even 60% income tax applies only once income is earned, but tax on annual allowances is calculated and due, even when the money is untouchable.
It is one of many reasons why there is a doubling of retirements this year.
My GP (mid-50s as a guess) has just announced his retirement. Surgery being taken over by “Integrated Care 24” (IC24)
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.
The answer to that is always the same: pensioners are on fixed incomes and cannot compensate for deteriorating economic circumstances by working longer hours or looking for more lucrative employment.
The correct way to deal with this problem is through higher death duties and steeper taxation of property. Payment of land value taxes on pensioner properties could be deferred, and the cumulative sum subtracted from the value of their estate when they shuffle off. It won't yield a massive instant windfall - none of it would be payable until a single pensioner or the surviving half of a pensioner married couple dies - but in the long run it will provide a steady stream of income and ensure that the wealthy old, who are the Tory core client group and therefore keep being shielded from economic pain using a firehose of everyone else's money, end up paying a fair share towards remedying the parlous state of the nation.
Way too much focus on McCarthy talk about debt limit with @JakeSherman - easily most important news so far is McCarthy announcing opposition to more military aid to Ukraine. This is major global geo-political earthquake if he sticks to this position. He might cave, who knows.
Way too much focus on McCarthy talk about debt limit with @JakeSherman - easily most important news so far is McCarthy announcing opposition to more military aid to Ukraine. This is major global geo-political earthquake if he sticks to this position. He might cave, who knows.
Actual full quote is slightly different '“It’s not a free blank check. And then there’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically. Not doing the border and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check,” McCarthy said.
Many Republicans in the House support military aid for Ukraine but are skeptical about nonmilitary humanitarian aid.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Betfair Exchange
Not a terrible idea. By laying 'not happenings' - eg Spurs for the PL or Boris Johnson next PM - you can earn an almost risk free 7% or so on there over the course of a year.
You have to concentrate and stay diligent though. Could Leon do that? Not sure.
Way too much focus on McCarthy talk about debt limit with @JakeSherman - easily most important news so far is McCarthy announcing opposition to more military aid to Ukraine. This is major global geo-political earthquake if he sticks to this position. He might cave, who knows.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Might not be the worst time to go into equities if you are brave. FTSE250, S&P500 are both down over 20% (S&P, not in sterling terms, but it does at least neutralise the dollar premium). both could of course plummet like paralysed falcons from here on down.
Bond funds are way, way down and this might be a good time to go in. I hate and fear and do not understand bonds, I have just lost a fucking stack in INXG.
There are some 4% for a year deposit fixes around if you can bear the thought of parcelling it into n times £80,000 packages and opening n different bank accounts. Or Hargreaves Lansdown or interactive investor run aggregation services where you send them the wodge and they do the parcelling out.
NOT ADVICE
I’ve started to drip back into Nasdaq. I don’t think you’ll be upset having bought at these values in 3 years.
+1
But monthly drip drip, no lump sums at present. Which doesn’t really answer the question.
However, as I’m only really interested in the long term, equities look terrific value. But if you *need* that cash within 3-5 years (maybe even 7-8), look elsewhere.
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
I sense you're being driven by politics of envy on this one.
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.
I am sure there are many in the private sector whose hearts are bleeding profusely for the poor thing. What sort of final salary percentage is she looking forward to?
The problem is that the tax is due on money not yet received. Even 60% income tax applies only once income is earned, but tax on annual allowances is calculated and due, even when the money is untouchable.
It is one of many reasons why there is a doubling of retirements this year.
Hunt is aware of this issue at least, hence this recent tweet of his:
Poor lambs. They get paid so much that they are forced to retire in their 50s.
Cut their pay and they'd have to put a shift in like the rest of us.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
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
I sense you're being driven by politics of envy on this one.
Not least because the original public sector salaries were *reduced* by Treasury actuaries in the first place to counteract the pension.
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.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Might not be the worst time to go into equities if you are brave. FTSE250, S&P500 are both down over 20% (S&P, not in sterling terms, but it does at least neutralise the dollar premium). both could of course plummet like paralysed falcons from here on down.
Bond funds are way, way down and this might be a good time to go in. I hate and fear and do not understand bonds, I have just lost a fucking stack in INXG.
There are some 4% for a year deposit fixes around if you can bear the thought of parcelling it into n times £80,000 packages and opening n different bank accounts. Or Hargreaves Lansdown or interactive investor run aggregation services where you send them the wodge and they do the parcelling out.
NOT ADVICE
If you buy an S&P 500 ETF are you exposed to currency risk/benefit or does your return just track the index?
There's hedged and unhedged, according to taste. Hedging costs and I am gloomily certain we are headed to parity and beyond, so I don't bother.
The £ isn’t moving up significantly in a hurry (although there’ll be a blip upwards if the Tories get rid of Loopy), so hedging is probably unnecessary in the short term.
With bond funds generally you’d expect to take a hit as interest rates rise, and also need to factor in the rollover risk. Although INXG has a pretty long average time to maturity and the problem there is that inflation expectations for the next five years are higher than for the back end of the bonds they track. Currently, interest rates are driving yields higher at the longer end of the curve and wiping out potential returns that could be gained from inflation being high.
If it looks as if inflation is here to stay, they might do better. DYOR.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
Scotland needs a DUP. Tories could have been it. I think the SNP is coming pretty close these days.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
A few Corbynites and Greens aside, left wing English people support the union.
It seems like the mood has swung against the Democrats in recent days when it comes to the Midterms. and that it is looking more and more likely the GOP will do well.
The 1/6 Ladbrokes are offering for the GOP to take the House majority is probably free money at this point bar a Hail Mary moment given it's a 16% return for a few weeks. I would be more looking at the GOP to get more than 50 seats which is 5/4. It increasingly looks like Johnson will hold on in WI so that means PA as the most likely Dem gain. But Fetterman is struggling to fight off both the crime and health issues while, on the flip side, NV has been showing small but consistent leads for the GOP for both the Senate and the Governor's race and GA /AZ look competitive.
If you think that the tide could truly turn than the 53 (8/1) or 54 (16/1) seats might be of interest - at 53, the GOP keeps its seats plus AZ / GA / NV or.54, if you add on one of NH or CO.
There is clearly a meaningful swing to the Republicans, but I dislike low odds bets unless things look really certain - frankly, there's a small (but meaningful) chance that I lose all my money, and you just need to be a few percentage points wrong on the probabilities and you get hammered.
Or, to put it another way, taking 6-1 on the Republicans taking the House means that I'm assuming that 538 is wildly wrong for a pretty small return.
On a state-by-state basis, my views are:
- Nevada, Republicans gain both the Senate seat and the Governorship
- Arizona, on the 538 polling average Kelly has extended his lead over Masters in the last couple of weeks to 6 points, he has good favorability numbers, and there hasn't been a single poll showing Masters winning. So, I think it's still more likely to be a Dem hold, with the Republicans clinching the Governorship.
- Georgia: Kemp will walk the Governorship, but I suspect the Senate race is going to a run-off. It looks like 3-4 points of Republican support is going to the Libertarian candidate, so that makes it pretty hard for Walker to crack the 50%. It will then be a very interesting run-off election between Warnock and Walker. (Worth noting that Republicans can vote Libertarian in November risk free, because a vote to the Libertarian does nothing to push Warnock over the 50% mark.)
- Pennsylvania: it's been a tough couple of weeks for Fetterman, and he's moved from likely winner to toss-up. But I think Oz has a problem that we underestimate: Mastriano is a terrible candidate for Governor. Republicans in Arizona will come out to vote for Lake, and will vote for Masters, because he's on the ballot. But there's not a lot of enthusiasm for Mastriano, and on 538 averages he 11 points behind Shapiro. So, while this is going to be a very close race I still make Fetterman the narrow favorite.
Now, Colorado and New Hampshire could both flip. Looking at Colorado: the last two polls show O'Dea 7 and 9 points behind incumbent Bennet in an increasingly Blue state. O'Dea has really struggled to consistently break 40% in polls, and that's a really hard position to come back from. And New Hampshire very rarely boots out incumbents, and the polling averages show Hassan on more than 50%.
Put that together, and while I like betting on edge cases - i.e. I think it's more likely that things are going to be meaningfully away from the center line everywhere (and in one direction), I don't find the 16-1 appealling. I might be tempted by a very small flutter on the 8-1, on the basis that if the polls are wrong, they're likely to be wrong everywhere. But it'd be a "I think this is really a 6-1 shot, and I'm being given 8-1" bet, rather than what I think is the most likely outcome.
Way too much focus on McCarthy talk about debt limit with @JakeSherman - easily most important news so far is McCarthy announcing opposition to more military aid to Ukraine. This is major global geo-political earthquake if he sticks to this position. He might cave, who knows.
Actual full quote is slightly different '“It’s not a free blank check. And then there’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically. Not doing the border and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check,” McCarthy said.
Many Republicans in the House support military aid for Ukraine but are skeptical about nonmilitary humanitarian aid.
I have no time for the Republican party and agree it's infested with far-right lunatics and Trump backing shits, but HY does have a point here, to the extent that a Republican majority in the House post-November is highly unlikely to result in a diminution of military backing for the Ukrainians. Most of the existing GOP caucus has voted repeatedly to extend funding for Ukraine.
The only really serious threat in that regard would seem to be the return of Trump (or a similarly poisonous nut) in the 2024 presidential election, but that in turn could only come to pass if the Russians manage not to lose or be forced to the negotiating table for over two years. And Putin is already being reduced to throwing untrained cannon fodder at the Ukrainian Army, which is growing in strength relative to his the entire time. An opportunity for Trump to rescue Putin from defeat seems, therefore, unlikely to materialise.
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.
Way too much focus on McCarthy talk about debt limit with @JakeSherman - easily most important news so far is McCarthy announcing opposition to more military aid to Ukraine. This is major global geo-political earthquake if he sticks to this position. He might cave, who knows.
Unfortunately, a late wave is breaking in favour of the Republicans in November. Generic polling has now turned firmly in their favour.
Poor Ukraine.
The Trump defenders/supporters on here need to repudiate their support or forever be tarred as appeasers and traitors to the West.
Look, only 57 out of 212 House Republicans voted against $40 billion of aid to Ukraine in May, however the fact they want tight control on spending across the board, including non military aid to Ukraine is no surprise.
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.
House prices need to come down in real terms but a plummet really fucks over people who have bought in the last 5 years (i.e. my generation). People who have already been fucked over by high house prices and low wage growth in the first place.
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.
The answer to that is always the same: pensioners are on fixed incomes and cannot compensate for deteriorating economic circumstances by working longer hours or looking for more lucrative employment.
The correct way to deal with this problem is through higher death duties and steeper taxation of property. Payment of land value taxes on pensioner properties could be deferred, and the cumulative sum subtracted from the value of their estate when they shuffle off. It won't yield a massive instant windfall - none of it would be payable until a single pensioner or the surviving half of a pensioner married couple dies - but in the long run it will provide a steady stream of income and ensure that the wealthy old, who are the Tory core client group and therefore keep being shielded from economic pain using a firehose of everyone else's money, end up paying a fair share towards remedying the parlous state of the nation.
Agreed. Those future taxes can be baked in to the public finances too.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
A few Corbynites and Greens aside, left wing English people support the union.
Only because the solid merits of English independence have never been presented to them.
Remember, it took the SNP over 7 decades of campaigning before we managed to persuade enough people to let us run the country in 2007. Supporters of English independence need to make a start.
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.
House prices need to come down in real terms but a plummet really fucks over people who have bought in the last 5 years (i.e. my generation). People who have already been fucked over by high house prices and low wage growth in the first place.
I don't disagree with that. A big drop hurts those with recent purchases the most*, and benefits those without housing equity the most.
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.
Hence my experience in the nineties. Did well in the long term, but was quite stretched for a few years.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
A few Corbynites and Greens aside, left wing English people support the union.
I suspect most don't have strong views either way.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
A few Corbynites and Greens aside, left wing English people support the union.
Only because the solid merits of English independence have never been presented to them.
Remember, it took the SNP over 7 decades of campaigning before we managed to persuade enough people to let us run the country in 2007. Supporters of English independence need to make a start.
The vast majority of English people are sensible enough to know we are better and stronger together as one United Kingdom.
English nationalism would only really become a thing if the Scots were allowed an indyref2 and a majority voted for independence. Then English voters would vote for whichever party promised to take as hard a line with the SNP as possible so not a penny more of English taxes were sent north of the border and to start building the customs posts at Berwick
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.
Or, neither. My position doesn't matter to me as I live in my house and propose to die in it. This is just part of the war on Barty's tendency to oversimplify. Yes, a price crash is to be welcomed; no, it is not springtime for Hitler and FTBs when it does, it's springtime, initially, for predatory rentseekers with piles of cash money in their bank accounts.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
Scotland needs a DUP. Tories could have been it. I think the SNP is coming pretty close these days.
You clearly have never met anyone in the DUP. They are nasty, intolerant bunch of ignorant half-wits and that was back in the day before the flat-earth and 6,000 year brigade moved in.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
In my bank account.
Leon should try buying “things”, whose value will increase in line with inflation. I don’t have any particular expertise to offer, but there is a wide range of collectible stuff that is likely to increase in value as global inequality increases and the number of super-rich looking for unusual stuff continues to grow. For example Titanic memorabilia are in huge demand.
With Leon’s lifestyle he must have access to people with relevant expertise?
So long as this doesn’t distract him from continuing to pass duff military advice to his friend in the Kremlin - today’s big PB revelation - which has so far proved about as useful to Putin as his other predictions have to us….
Denmark votes in two weeks - the latest Megafon poll as follows (changes from 2019) and only showing parties above the 2% threshold:
Red - Centre Left - Bloc parties: Social Democrats: 25.6% (-0.3) Radikale Venstre: 4.9% (-3.7) Socialist People's Party: 9.1% (+1.4) Red-Green List: 6.7% (-0.2)
Total Red Bloc Vote Share: 46.3% (-2.8)
Blue - Centre Right - Bloc parties: Venstre: 14.8% (-8.6) Conservatives: 9.2% (+2.6) Denmark Democrats: 8.5% (new) Liberal Alliance: 5.4% (+3.1) New Right: 4.2% (+1.8) Danish People's Party: 2.9% (-5.8)
Total Blue Bloc Vote Share: 45.0% (+1.6)
That leaves the unaligned Moderates at 5.6% and three very small parties polling a total of 3.1%.
The Moderates are therefore left holding the balance (or the baby) if you prefer. Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the party's leader, is now polling second behind Mette Frederiksen in "Preferred Statsminister" polls.
Rasmussen was Prime Minister and led the Venstre Party so you'd think he might incline to the centre-right bloc but it's also the case he left his old party under a cloud and beset by political scandal. His political revival is far from complete and while the party's website reads as though his MPs will decide on a case-by-case basis, it may be difficult to hold that line.
It looks as though both blocs will be pulled further away from the centre if the numbers above are any guide.
FPTP in Scotland is, of course, incredibly cruel to Labour. Given that it can't catch the SNP by stealing Tory votes - there's an irreducible core of centre-right Unionists who won't touch Labour with a bargepole - it's always behind: one assumes that the left-leaning pool in which both it and the SNP fish probably contains a majority for greater autonomy at a bare minimum.
I don't know if Labour could start to peel off SNP voters in numbers if it offers an outright Home Rule package, but as things stand its position, at least when it comes to Westminster votes, seems pretty hopeless. It is as well for Sir Keir that the Tory position in England and Wales is so dire that he could well be in line for a handsome Parliamentary majority without much help from his Scottish colleagues.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
Scotland needs a DUP. Tories could have been it. I think the SNP is coming pretty close these days.
You clearly have never met anyone in the DUP. They are nasty, intolerant bunch of ignorant half-wits and that was back in the day before the flat-earth and 6,000 year brigade moved in.
I'm not suggesting importing its membership, just the concept of a strongly unionist but strongly regionally-focused entity.
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.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
In my bank account.
Leon should try buying “things”, whose value will increase in line with inflation. I don’t have any particular expertise to offer, but there is a wide range of collectible stuff that is likely to increase in value as global inequality increases and the number of super-rich looking for unusual stuff continues to grow. For example Titanic memorabilia are in huge demand.
With Leon’s lifestyle he must have access to people with relevant expertise?
So long as this doesn’t distract him from continuing to pass duff military advice to his friend in the Kremlin - today’s big PB revelation - which has so far proved about as useful to Putin as his other predictions have to us….
Well, if we're doing capitalism properly, the proper answer is to invest in businesses and people in order to generate a return and in the process generate wealth, jobs and prosperity. Who am I kidding?
Cookie tracking has gone. The modern approach is UserAgent tracking which is far more sinister.
Browser fingerprinting is now so accurate that even privacy preserving browsers (which default to all the "safe" settings) are having to do things like fix windows sizes, report false values, disable downloaded fonts, and generally degrade the whole browsing experience in order to limit but not stop fingerprinting.
Basically the goal is to reduce entropy so that each user is in a sufficiently large fingerprint "bucket" to have some anonymity. e.g. 1 in 1,000 out of 1,000,000 users has these settings (a thousand possible users), rather than say 1 in 100,000 (ten users).
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
A few Corbynites and Greens aside, left wing English people support the union.
Only because the solid merits of English independence have never been presented to them.
Remember, it took the SNP over 7 decades of campaigning before we managed to persuade enough people to let us run the country in 2007. Supporters of English independence need to make a start.
The vast majority of English people are sensible enough to know we are better and stronger together as one United Kingdom.
English nationalism would only really become a thing if the Scots were allowed an indyref2 and a majority voted for independence. Then English voters would vote for whichever party promised to take as hard a line with the SNP as possible so not a penny more of English taxes were sent north of the border and to start building the customs posts at Berwick
You’re not advocating English nationalism there, you’re advocating fascism. As is your wont.
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!
FPTP in Scotland is, of course, incredibly cruel to Labour. Given that it can't catch the SNP by stealing Tory votes - there's an irreducible core of centre-right Unionists who won't touch Labour with a bargepole - it's always behind: one assumes that the left-leaning pool in which both it and the SNP fish probably contains a majority for greater autonomy at a bare minimum.
I don't know if Labour could start to peel off SNP voters in numbers if it offers an outright Home Rule package, but as things stand its position, at least when it comes to Westminster votes, seems pretty hopeless. It is as well for Sir Keir that the Tory position in England and Wales is so dire that he could well be in line for a handsome Parliamentary majority without much help from his Scottish colleagues.
If SLab gets Scon and SLD tactical votes it could win more seats than projected, there are significantly more than 11 SNP seats where Labour are second and the SNP vote is less than 50%
Seriously the Tories are going to ditch the Triple Lock . I would be gobsmacked . That’s their core vote .
I really can’t see this happening.
Hunt should do it anyway.
All the Tories have to do is tie it to average earnings, and ditch the rest (and insert an exemptions clause to cover bizarre situations like the lockdown). How can the wrinklies complain that their pension goes up in line with the pay of those who are economically active?
Where we are tonight. Everyone agrees Truss should go. But some of the One Nation wing think if she stays for a while Jeremy Hunt could emerge as permanent PM, or Penny Mordaunt as a unity candidate. Meanwhile some in the ERG think if she stays for a while it will kill off Rishi.
Also apparent that elements of Jeremy Hunt’s 31 October statement are currently being traded off for support amongst the party’s various factions, and to head-off cabinet resignations.
None of this horse trading or manoeuvring is going to work btw. But the Tory party is still going to do the dance.
One part of this game of 3d parliamentary chess. Jeremy Hunt is also keen to avoid Cabinet resignations, because he and his allies have calculated his power is maximised by Truss remaining (he stays de facto PM and Chancellor) rather than ‘just’ Chancellor under her successor.
Liz Truss has rehired David Canzini, the Boris Johnson aide beloved of the Tory right. He will be "helping the prime minister" - unclear what his job title is.
Seriously the Tories are going to ditch the Triple Lock . I would be gobsmacked . That’s their core vote .
I really can’t see this happening.
Hunt should do it anyway.
All the Tories have to do is tie it to average earnings, and ditch the rest (and insert an exemptions clause to cover bizarre situations like the lockdown). How can the wrinklies complain that their pension goes up in line with the pay of those who are economically active?
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
Betfair Exchange
Not a terrible idea. By laying 'not happenings' - eg Spurs for the PL or Boris Johnson next PM - you can earn an almost risk free 7% or so on there over the course of a year.
You have to concentrate and stay diligent though. Could Leon do that? Not sure.
It’s not a bad suggestion. People with deep pockets lay all manner of bets, and with a bit of judgement you should be able to get an edge. Effectively you become the bookmaker to others’ rash bets. But of all the people on PB I’d rate Leon pretty much bottom in terms of having the analytical skills, patience and consistency to see such a strategy through.
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
It makes you wonder what the SNP could achieve were they to run against the Tories in England!
England needs an equivalent of the SNP: pro-English, competent, centre-left.
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party I presume, which is actually now polling higher in England than the SNP is in Scotland
But Labour is not pro-English, it is British nationalist.
Obvious example is Gordon Brown’s renewed attempt to split up England into regions, instead of recognising the integrity of the English state.
There is little to no demand for English nationalism in England, the English Democrats have never got anywhere near a parliamentary seat.
Ignoring the Union policy wise there is little difference between Sturgeon and Starmer, even on Brexit both were Remainers though Starmer now accepts a slightly more closely aligned version of the current deal with the EU
I said England needs an equivalent of the SNP.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
A few Corbynites and Greens aside, left wing English people support the union.
Only because the solid merits of English independence have never been presented to them.
Remember, it took the SNP over 7 decades of campaigning before we managed to persuade enough people to let us run the country in 2007. Supporters of English independence need to make a start.
The vast majority of English people are sensible enough to know we are better and stronger together as one United Kingdom.
English nationalism would only really become a thing if the Scots were allowed an indyref2 and a majority voted for independence. Then English voters would vote for whichever party promised to take as hard a line with the SNP as possible so not a penny more of English taxes were sent north of the border and to start building the customs posts at Berwick
You’re not advocating English nationalism there, you’re advocating fascism. As is your wont.
No, it is not Fascism to stop sending English taxpayers money to Scotland. If the UK ends then Scots would discover the hard way English funds end too. They would be on their own and be treated as the foreign country they voted to be.
A hard border at Berwick is also inevitable on the terms of the current UK and EU trade deal
Liz Truss has rehired David Canzini, the Boris Johnson aide beloved of the Tory right. He will be "helping the prime minister" - unclear what his job title is.
Are we just all in the ERGs pocket now? If that’s the case, the whole lot deserve to lose their seat. Maybe some more principled MPs might realise the game is up and vote for a VONC. Ridiculous
Seriously the Tories are going to ditch the Triple Lock . I would be gobsmacked . That’s their core vote .
I really can’t see this happening.
Hunt should do it anyway.
All the Tories have to do is tie it to average earnings, and ditch the rest (and insert an exemptions clause to cover bizarre situations like the lockdown). How can the wrinklies complain that their pension goes up in line with the pay of those who are economically active?
It has to go some time and no Chancellor will ever have a better opportunity.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
In my bank account.
Leon should try buying “things”, whose value will increase in line with inflation. I don’t have any particular expertise to offer, but there is a wide range of collectible stuff that is likely to increase in value as global inequality increases and the number of super-rich looking for unusual stuff continues to grow. For example Titanic memorabilia are in huge demand.
With Leon’s lifestyle he must have access to people with relevant expertise?
So long as this doesn’t distract him from continuing to pass duff military advice to his friend in the Kremlin - today’s big PB revelation - which has so far proved about as useful to Putin as his other predictions have to us….
Well, if we're doing capitalism properly, the proper answer is to invest in businesses and people in order to generate a return and in the process generate wealth, jobs and prosperity. Who am I kidding?
True, if you can spot businesses that are recession proof.
I have a ton of cash just sitting in bank accounts losing 10% a year. Where do you put it?!
In my bank account.
Leon should try buying “things”, whose value will increase in line with inflation. I don’t have any particular expertise to offer, but there is a wide range of collectible stuff that is likely to increase in value as global inequality increases and the number of super-rich looking for unusual stuff continues to grow. For example Titanic memorabilia are in huge demand.
With Leon’s lifestyle he must have access to people with relevant expertise?
So long as this doesn’t distract him from continuing to pass duff military advice to his friend in the Kremlin - today’s big PB revelation - which has so far proved about as useful to Putin as his other predictions have to us….
Well, if we're doing capitalism properly, the proper answer is to invest in businesses and people in order to generate a return and in the process generate wealth, jobs and prosperity. Who am I kidding?
True, if you can spot businesses that are recession proof.
This poll confirms Con members are actually far less ideological than most people on here think.
In Leadership elections, members will understandably think that both of the Final 2 candidates are reasonable choices - because the MPs have chosen them as the Final 2 - ie they think MPs wouldn't put someone in the Final 2 if they weren't suitable. So the members consider themselves free to choose who they like the most - rather than it being their job to "sniff out a dud".
But this poll shows very clearly that what they care about most is the Party governing well with the best leader, regardless of ideology. They now know that isn't Truss and they have no real attachment to her.
And this is confirmed by the fact members now overwhelmingly want one of the Sunak/Mordaunt/Hunt group rather than the Badenoch/Braverman group - because ultimately ideology is much less important to them than competence and winning.
(Excluding Boris as he is really completely separate - though arguably he falls in the Sunak camp - after all he did have Sunak as his Chancellor).
Way too much focus on McCarthy talk about debt limit with @JakeSherman - easily most important news so far is McCarthy announcing opposition to more military aid to Ukraine. This is major global geo-political earthquake if he sticks to this position. He might cave, who knows.
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.
Presumably ditching the triple lock can be sold as giving money to cover energy bills instead?
We can't afford the triple lock.
The older generation had a huge safety net from Covid. It cost the country a vast amount. Now there has to be some recognition of that - and some sharing in helping rebalance the economy.
Liz Truss has rehired David Canzini, the Boris Johnson aide beloved of the Tory right. He will be "helping the prime minister" - unclear what his job title is.
Are we just all in the ERGs pocket now? If that’s the case, the whole lot deserve to lose their seat. Maybe some more principled MPs might realise the game is up and vote for a VONC. Ridiculous
The Conservative Party - and the country - would be much better off if the ERG pottered off into its dotage, mumbling incoherently to itself. And most of its MPs as well - those that are not already mumbling incoherently.
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.
This poll confirms Con members are actually far less ideological than most people on here think.
In Leadership elections, members will understandably think that both of the Final 2 candidates are reasonable choices - because the MPs have chosen them as the Final 2 - ie they think MPs wouldn't put someone in the Final 2 if they weren't suitable. So they are free to then choose who they like the most - rather than it being their job to "sniff out a dud".
But this poll shows very clearly that what they care about most is the Party governing well with the best leader, regardless of ideology. They now know that isn't Truss and they have no real attachment to her.
And this is confirmed by the fact members now overwhelmingly want one of the Sunak/Mordaunt/Hunt group rather than the Badenoch/Braverman group - because ultimately ideology is much less important to them than competence and winning.
For now, if Sunak or Hunt or Mordaunt takes over and loses, they would likely go for Badenoch or Braverman in opposition as they have nothing to lose
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!
The idea of going or not going to a state because it's Dem or Rep is utterly bizarre. Who goes to the States for the politics?
Liz Truss has rehired David Canzini, the Boris Johnson aide beloved of the Tory right. He will be "helping the prime minister" - unclear what his job title is.
Are we just all in the ERGs pocket now? If that’s the case, the whole lot deserve to lose their seat. Maybe some more principled MPs might realise the game is up and vote for a VONC. Ridiculous
The Conservative Party - and the country - would be much better off if the ERG pottered off into its dotage, mumbling incoherently to itself. And most of its MPs as well - those that are not already mumbling incoherently.
Im sure Steve Baker will be along soon to tell us what we’re all doing wrong
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.
This poll confirms Con members are actually far less ideological than most people on here think.
In Leadership elections, members will understandably think that both of the Final 2 candidates are reasonable choices - because the MPs have chosen them as the Final 2 - ie they think MPs wouldn't put someone in the Final 2 if they weren't suitable. So they are free to then choose who they like the most - rather than it being their job to "sniff out a dud".
But this poll shows very clearly that what they care about most is the Party governing well with the best leader, regardless of ideology. They now know that isn't Truss and they have no real attachment to her.
And this is confirmed by the fact members now overwhelmingly want one of the Sunak/Mordaunt/Hunt group rather than the Badenoch/Braverman group - because ultimately ideology is much less important to them than competence and winning.
Meaning, they do the right thing after exhausting all other options. There's no way they sleaze their way out of the charge sheet: IDS, BJ, LT.
As noted upthread, it is in Hunt's interest for Truss to stay. It is also in Starmer's.
Agree with you about Gove, but he is clever.
I agree; I've said as much. Hunt owes his current promotion to Truss's unpopularity.
Gove is just foul, I'm sorry. It's his slithering around that deliberately engineered Truss into the final two to get his choice of Sunak elected. The members did not play ball, diddums.
I am watching a film called Zulu; it is horribly violent. I am going to stop watching it even though I want to know what happens.
Seriously the Tories are going to ditch the Triple Lock . I would be gobsmacked . That’s their core vote .
I really can’t see this happening.
Hunt should do it anyway.
All the Tories have to do is tie it to average earnings, and ditch the rest (and insert an exemptions clause to cover bizarre situations like the lockdown). How can the wrinklies complain that their pension goes up in line with the pay of those who are economically active?
It has to go some time and no Chancellor will ever have a better opportunity.
They have dumped earnings this year but then undertaken to restore them for rest of this parliament:
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.
Presumably ditching the triple lock can be sold as giving money to cover energy bills instead?
We can't afford the triple lock.
The older generation had a huge safety net from Covid. It cost the country a vast amount. Now there has to be some recognition of that - and some sharing in helping rebalance the economy.
And I said this 2 years ago.
On the other hand, pensioners are a vast chunk of the electorate, the core client group of the incumbent Government, and they vote religiously.
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"
Comments
EDIT: I see that @LostPassword has provided the explanation: currency fluctuation. Which means that a drop in the value of the Euro (e.g. if there's another outbreak of the Eurozone sovereign debt shambles) could magically see the UK economy reflate relative to Germany's, but that this would no more be evidence of massive relative UK strength than the currency correction is of massive relative UK weakness.
All other things being equal that essentially accounts for all of the decline.
Now, over the long-term, I'd agree that a weak currency reflects a weak economy, but in the short-term a currency can be over or under valued because of market sentiment. It's hard to say how much the decline in Sterling over the period is due to a decline in the British economy and how much is due to a change in market sentiment. Plausibly a bit of both.
What this means is that there's quite a lot of potential to improve things, if we start really tackling the long-term weaknesses in the economy.
It is one of many reasons why there is a doubling of retirements this year.
Hey, when I mentioned "nationalistic bellicose people" you didn't take that as a reference to you, did you?
Is that why you're vibrating?
Way too much focus on McCarthy talk about debt limit with
@JakeSherman - easily most important news so far is McCarthy announcing opposition to more military aid to Ukraine. This is major global geo-political earthquake if he sticks to this position. He might cave, who knows.
https://twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/1582376913318088705/photo/1
The correct way to deal with this problem is through higher death duties and steeper taxation of property. Payment of land value taxes on pensioner properties could be deferred, and the cumulative sum subtracted from the value of their estate when they shuffle off. It won't yield a massive instant windfall - none of it would be payable until a single pensioner or the surviving half of a pensioner married couple dies - but in the long run it will provide a steady stream of income and ensure that the wealthy old, who are the Tory core client group and therefore keep being shielded from economic pain using a firehose of everyone else's money, end up paying a fair share towards remedying the parlous state of the nation.
One American friend (very much not a Trump supporter) in Alabama says he feels like Charlton Heston in The Omega Man, surrounded by the mutants.
Many Republicans in the House support military aid for Ukraine but are skeptical about nonmilitary humanitarian aid.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3694022-mccarthy-warns-no-blank-check-to-ukraine-in-gop-majority/
You have to concentrate and stay diligent though. Could Leon do that? Not sure.
The Trump defenders/supporters on here need to repudiate their support or forever be tarred as appeasers and traitors to the West.
But monthly drip drip, no lump sums at present. Which doesn’t really answer the question.
However, as I’m only really interested in the long term, equities look terrific value. But if you *need* that cash within 3-5 years (maybe even 7-8), look elsewhere.
Yesterday at Windsor, one winner, three seconds and a third from five selections but it was free admission and a lovely afternoon.
Plenty of low grade flat racing this week to help get that pile of cash lower than a Tory poll rating.
Cut their pay and they'd have to put a shift in like the rest of us.
The English Democrats were a false dawn. Too right-wing for a start.
And by definition, the new party cannot be Unionist, so Labour fails. (They also fail the competence test.)
With bond funds generally you’d expect to take a hit as interest rates rise, and also need to factor in the rollover risk. Although INXG has a pretty long average time to maturity and the problem there is that inflation expectations for the next five years are higher than for the back end of the bonds they track. Currently, interest rates are driving yields higher at the longer end of the curve and wiping out potential returns that could be gained from inflation being high.
If it looks as if inflation is here to stay, they might do better. DYOR.
In my experience the algorithms these companies use for 'calculating' regular DDs are at best extremely naive and at worst borderline criminal.
Or, to put it another way, taking 6-1 on the Republicans taking the House means that I'm assuming that 538 is wildly wrong for a pretty small return.
On a state-by-state basis, my views are:
- Nevada, Republicans gain both the Senate seat and the Governorship
- Arizona, on the 538 polling average Kelly has extended his lead over Masters in the last couple of weeks to 6 points, he has good favorability numbers, and there hasn't been a single poll showing Masters winning. So, I think it's still more likely to be a Dem hold, with the Republicans clinching the Governorship.
- Georgia: Kemp will walk the Governorship, but I suspect the Senate race is going to a run-off. It looks like 3-4 points of Republican support is going to the Libertarian candidate, so that makes it pretty hard for Walker to crack the 50%. It will then be a very interesting run-off election between Warnock and Walker. (Worth noting that Republicans can vote Libertarian in November risk free, because a vote to the Libertarian does nothing to push Warnock over the 50% mark.)
- Pennsylvania: it's been a tough couple of weeks for Fetterman, and he's moved from likely winner to toss-up. But I think Oz has a problem that we underestimate: Mastriano is a terrible candidate for Governor. Republicans in Arizona will come out to vote for Lake, and will vote for Masters, because he's on the ballot. But there's not a lot of enthusiasm for Mastriano, and on 538 averages he 11 points behind Shapiro. So, while this is going to be a very close race I still make Fetterman the narrow favorite.
Now, Colorado and New Hampshire could both flip. Looking at Colorado: the last two polls show O'Dea 7 and 9 points behind incumbent Bennet in an increasingly Blue state. O'Dea has really struggled to consistently break 40% in polls, and that's a really hard position to come back from. And New Hampshire very rarely boots out incumbents, and the polling averages show Hassan on more than 50%.
Put that together, and while I like betting on edge cases - i.e. I think it's more likely that things are going to be meaningfully away from the center line everywhere (and in one direction), I don't find the 16-1 appealling. I might be tempted by a very small flutter on the 8-1, on the basis that if the polls are wrong, they're likely to be wrong everywhere. But it'd be a "I think this is really a 6-1 shot, and I'm being given 8-1" bet, rather than what I think is the most likely outcome.
SNP 44%
SLab 38%
SCon 9%
Grn 4%
SLD 2%
Baxtered (new boundaries) that gives:
SNP 45 seats (-3)
SLab 12 seats (+11)
SCon 0 seats (-6)
SLD 0 seats (-2)
The only really serious threat in that regard would seem to be the return of Trump (or a similarly poisonous nut) in the 2024 presidential election, but that in turn could only come to pass if the Russians manage not to lose or be forced to the negotiating table for over two years. And Putin is already being reduced to throwing untrained cannon fodder at the Ukrainian Army, which is growing in strength relative to his the entire time. An opportunity for Trump to rescue Putin from defeat seems, therefore, unlikely to materialise.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/10/politics/house-vote-ukraine-aid-bill/index.html
The GOP are almost certain to win the House in November as almost every President sees their party fail to control the House in their first midterm.
Plenty on the left are against any action in Ukraine at all, eg supporters of former Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/aoc-tulsi-gabbard-russia-ukraine-b2202298.html
Remember, it took the SNP over 7 decades of campaigning before we managed to persuade enough people to let us run the country in 2007. Supporters of English independence need to make a start.
* Bar the over leveraged portfolio landlords.
English nationalism would only really become a thing if the Scots were allowed an indyref2 and a majority voted for independence. Then English voters would vote for whichever party promised to take as hard a line with the SNP as possible so not a penny more of English taxes were sent north of the border and to start building the customs posts at Berwick
I'm not sure of the legality of that but she'd be delighted they are still giving her some dosh even though she's dead ;-)
With Leon’s lifestyle he must have access to people with relevant expertise?
So long as this doesn’t distract him from continuing to pass duff military advice to his friend in the Kremlin - today’s big PB revelation - which has so far proved about as useful to Putin as his other predictions have to us….
Denmark votes in two weeks - the latest Megafon poll as follows (changes from 2019) and only showing parties above the 2% threshold:
Red - Centre Left - Bloc parties:
Social Democrats: 25.6% (-0.3)
Radikale Venstre: 4.9% (-3.7)
Socialist People's Party: 9.1% (+1.4)
Red-Green List: 6.7% (-0.2)
Total Red Bloc Vote Share: 46.3% (-2.8)
Blue - Centre Right - Bloc parties:
Venstre: 14.8% (-8.6)
Conservatives: 9.2% (+2.6)
Denmark Democrats: 8.5% (new)
Liberal Alliance: 5.4% (+3.1)
New Right: 4.2% (+1.8)
Danish People's Party: 2.9% (-5.8)
Total Blue Bloc Vote Share: 45.0% (+1.6)
That leaves the unaligned Moderates at 5.6% and three very small parties polling a total of 3.1%.
The Moderates are therefore left holding the balance (or the baby) if you prefer. Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the party's leader, is now polling second behind Mette Frederiksen in "Preferred Statsminister" polls.
Rasmussen was Prime Minister and led the Venstre Party so you'd think he might incline to the centre-right bloc but it's also the case he left his old party under a cloud and beset by political scandal. His political revival is far from complete and while the party's website reads as though his MPs will decide on a case-by-case basis, it may be difficult to hold that line.
It looks as though both blocs will be pulled further away from the centre if the numbers above are any guide.
I don't know if Labour could start to peel off SNP voters in numbers if it offers an outright Home Rule package, but as things stand its position, at least when it comes to Westminster votes, seems pretty hopeless. It is as well for Sir Keir that the Tory position in England and Wales is so dire that he could well be in line for a handsome Parliamentary majority without much help from his Scottish colleagues.
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.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-cabinet-meeting-no-10-apology-politics-live-follow-latest-fpw2d66xf?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1666113379
Basically the goal is to reduce entropy so that each user is in a sufficiently large fingerprint "bucket" to have some anonymity. e.g. 1 in 1,000 out of 1,000,000 users has these settings (a thousand possible users), rather than say 1 in 100,000 (ten users).
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!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-cabinet-meeting-no-10-apology-politics-live-follow-latest-fpw2d66xf
Also apparent that elements of Jeremy Hunt’s 31 October statement are currently being traded off for support amongst the party’s various factions, and to head-off cabinet resignations.
None of this horse trading or manoeuvring is going to work btw. But the Tory party is still going to do the dance.
One part of this game of 3d parliamentary chess. Jeremy Hunt is also keen to avoid Cabinet resignations, because he and his allies have calculated his power is maximised by Truss remaining (he stays de facto PM and Chancellor) rather than ‘just’ Chancellor under her successor.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582430237911969793
Liz Truss has rehired David Canzini, the Boris Johnson aide beloved of the Tory right. He will be "helping the prime minister" - unclear what his job title is.
ERG leaders say they're delighted by the move.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1582426444025966592
A hard border at Berwick is also inevitable on the terms of the current UK and EU trade deal
In Leadership elections, members will understandably think that both of the Final 2 candidates are reasonable choices - because the MPs have chosen them as the Final 2 - ie they think MPs wouldn't put someone in the Final 2 if they weren't suitable. So the members consider themselves free to choose who they like the most - rather than it being their job to "sniff out a dud".
But this poll shows very clearly that what they care about most is the Party governing well with the best leader, regardless of ideology. They now know that isn't Truss and they have no real attachment to her.
And this is confirmed by the fact members now overwhelmingly want one of the Sunak/Mordaunt/Hunt group rather than the Badenoch/Braverman group - because ultimately ideology is much less important to them than competence and winning.
(Excluding Boris as he is really completely separate - though arguably he falls in the Sunak camp - after all he did have Sunak as his Chancellor).
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.
Agree with you about Gove, but he is clever.
The older generation had a huge safety net from Covid. It cost the country a vast amount. Now there has to be some recognition of that - and some sharing in helping rebalance the economy.
And I said this 2 years ago.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
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.
Gove is just foul, I'm sorry. It's his slithering around that deliberately engineered Truss into the final two to get his choice of Sunak elected. The members did not play ball, diddums.
I am watching a film called Zulu; it is horribly violent. I am going to stop watching it even though I want to know what happens.
EDIT Not the Michael Caine one.
https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Govt-commits-to-triple-lock-for-rest-of-current-parliament-after-2022-23.php
MP and doctor Dan Poulter says health secretary’s ideas over ‘nanny statism’ are preventing action on obesity and smoking"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/18/therese-coffey-ultra-libertarian-health-stance-risking-lives-tory-ex-minister-dan-poulter-warns
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
The triple lock stays.
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"
https://twitter.com/HenryTribe/status/1582432983675703297