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.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
Silly point. Are you nanny free over what drugs you take, firearms you own, how roadworthy your car is and how fast and drunk you drive it? Ever seen someone die in their early 50s of metastasised-to-brain lung cancer? It may not be quite as bad as nannyism, but in the same parish.
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.
I am expecting surprise windfall taxes on energy companies and banks as whatever Truss said previously can be ignored completely as Hunt is de facto PM
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"
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.
Might be worth remembering that if they are retiring now in their 50s then these are the folks who were put in 72 hour shifts back when they were junior doctors. When did you ever do more than a 20 hour day?
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.
The triple lock stays.
To give such a significant slice of government spending the guarantee of tracking the higher of two indices and an absolute number was always an absurd long term proposition. It was only promised because of demography, and demography makes it dIfficult to amend.
The Tories have a perfect opportunity to do so now, but of course their polling weakness makes this exceptionally difficult. At 20%-ish in the polls, the wrinkly vote is pretty much all that they have left.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
I see that Suella Braverman is doing Liz Truss a big favour by making it clear that Liz wasn't the worst candidate the party could have chosen.
Rishi I make favourite to be next PM now, probably by coronation having replaced Truss before Christmas.
However the odds are he still loses, even if less badly than Truss would and Suella Braverman I would make favourite to then become Leader of the Opposition. Braverman got the biggest applause from the audience at the Conservative conference, including a bigger and longer ovation than Truss got
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
Risk to banks means they're more conservative on lending, but they're more conservative in a manner that aids first time buyers.
If you're using your savings to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your savings has improved. If you're using your equity in your home or homes to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your equity has worsened.
Even in house price falls, the housing market doesn't seize up completely. During such periods there are typically fewer house sales, but those house sales are dominated more by first time buyers who now find their savings are sufficient to buy a home, rather than existing home owners whose equity isn't there at the moment.
They basically don’t lend as much and/or require higher deposits. On average that doesn’t favour FTBs.
Love the determination of those with house price equity to claim that artificially inflated high prices are better for first time buyers rather than low prices. Not sure if they have managed to convince themselves of this absurdity or just don't want to admit that they want their own positions protected by the state.
It's a matter of timing.
Lower prices will make things better, but in the short term deposit requirements are increasing, so they're actually worse.
Pity the poor people who were going to be ready to buy next year. They'll have to wait some more.
Pay £500k this year or £400k in 2024? Which is better?
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.
And as a pensioner and whose wife's pension is just £4,800 pa at 83 years of age I agree completely it has to go
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!
"It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes."
Total horseshit. Just ask Leon just how much of a hellhole is the great State of Colorado.
Anyone who bases his travel plans on such nonsense should stay home. And hide under their bed.
EDIT - also a bit of a puzzler re: states like Washington - and Colorado - that are "blue" in parts (Seattle & most of King Co for example) but very "red" in others (Spokane Co outside the city and rest of eastern WA).
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
It really doesn't - VED is 99% automated.
I thought there was a whole building of people in Wales running it. My mistake.
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?
That does enter into my investment decisions, indeed is a large part of why I manage my own investments. Partly I am happy with risk as have other assets, but it really does matter to me that my money is financing the right sort of enterprises.
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%
FUDHY has clearly never heard of the concept of core voters. Some SCons and SLDs will never ever ever vote SLab.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
Risk to banks means they're more conservative on lending, but they're more conservative in a manner that aids first time buyers.
If you're using your savings to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your savings has improved. If you're using your equity in your home or homes to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your equity has worsened.
Even in house price falls, the housing market doesn't seize up completely. During such periods there are typically fewer house sales, but those house sales are dominated more by first time buyers who now find their savings are sufficient to buy a home, rather than existing home owners whose equity isn't there at the moment.
They basically don’t lend as much and/or require higher deposits. On average that doesn’t favour FTBs.
Love the determination of those with house price equity to claim that artificially inflated high prices are better for first time buyers rather than low prices. Not sure if they have managed to convince themselves of this absurdity or just don't want to admit that they want their own positions protected by the state.
It's a matter of timing.
Lower prices will make things better, but in the short term deposit requirements are increasing, so they're actually worse.
Pity the poor people who were going to be ready to buy next year. They'll have to wait some more.
Pay £500k this year or £400k in 2024? Which is better?
If you want a home to live in, rather than as an investment, and can pay the mortgage repayments, then I'd take an extra two years living in my own home, able to plant what I like in the garden, etc.
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"
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).
Who would the Johnson backers in that poll go for if he wasn't an option?
Was at St James's Park earlier today, saw the evacuation of the Treasury and FCO, hundreds of people gathered on Horse Guards' Parade and the park itself. I didn't know at the time that it was a suspect package.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They are taxed. Under PAYE. But bear in mind
(a) that the taxatyion system is fiddled to favour Tory voters, sorry I mean older people with savings, given the savings and dividend allowances - there's £3K there tax free alone [though at the moment it's hard ot realise the 1K of savings].
(b) that the tax known as National Insurance does not apply to pensioners
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
I don't even know what you mean by "nannyism".
I presume it comes from the same ludicrous nonsense that produced Kwarteng's economic policy.
Serious question - should the resources of the NHS be disproportionately consumed by those unwilling to change the way they live even slightly to improve their own health?
I've no problem if you or Therese Coffey want to smoke, eat or drink yourselves to death - where I object is when the resources used to try to keep you alive are not available to help someone else.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
I'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"
He's gone off piste by the looks of it but is safe because removing a cabinet minister is rather difficult at the moment.
Remove 1 and a fair few others may simply fall and roll away.
Is it difficult?
Not a single Minister raised a voice against the Truss/Karteng madness, so they are all culpable and any one could be tossed aside without the slightest problem. The only exception is Wallace. The rest stay only as long as Hunt wishes it.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Avoiding EARLY deaths might be a consideration.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The Russians have announced a forced removal of civilians in occupied Kherson on the right bank of the river. Supposedly this is because of the risk of flooding following the expected destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam.
Another idea, there must be some way of changing the way that budgets work - in all sectors but especially Government departments. At the moment, you 'use it or lose it', leading to departments spending up to their budget, potentially wastefully. If instead departments were rewarded for being frugal (perhaps personally rewarded via a bonjs scheme), this could gently and positively result in efficiency and lower Government spending.
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!
"It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes."
Total horseshit. Just ask Leon just how much of a hellhole is the great State of Colorado.
Anyone who bases his travel plans on such nonsense should stay home. And hide under their bed.
EDIT - also a bit of a puzzler re: states like Washington - and Colorado - that are "blue" in parts (Seattle & most of King Co for example) but very "red" in others (Spokane Co outside the city and rest of eastern WA).
Well yes - I report it largely because the opinions being expressed were so surprising.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Avoiding EARLY deaths might be a consideration.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
On the flip side, early deaths = lower pension costs....
So why oh why did they choose her? Was it the Maggie reborn stuff? Did the talk of 'Treasury orthodoxy' tap into a Trumpian destructive streak? The nearest thing they could get to Boris? What?
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
The Netherlands has followed Spain and Poland in pulling out of the Energy Charter Treaty.
"The mandate for the European Commission was to bring the ECT in line with the Paris climate agreement. Despite many of the modernisations that are now in the negotiation outcome, we do not see how the ECT has been sufficiently aligned with the Paris Agreement."
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!
"It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes."
Total horseshit. Just ask Leon just how much of a hellhole is the great State of Colorado.
Anyone who bases his travel plans on such nonsense should stay home. And hide under their bed.
EDIT - also a bit of a puzzler re: states like Washington - and Colorado - that are "blue" in parts (Seattle & most of King Co for example) but very "red" in others (Spokane Co outside the city and rest of eastern WA).
I'd put CO as Purple (although Blue tinged) @SeaShantyIrish2 but, TBF, I have heard the same from not a few people who went to New York and Chicago.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Avoiding EARLY deaths might be a consideration.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
On the flip side, early deaths = lower pension costs....
So THAT's how Tories plan to balance the books? Makes sense to me!
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
Start taxing electric car fuel in the same way as we tax petrol or diesel. It is inevitable anyway as the Government can't afford to lose all that tax in the next couple of decades.
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?
To be fair, I don't think they were implying they were necessarily implying enthusiasm for republicans per se - just for the places they happen to run. Still a surprising opinion.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Avoiding EARLY deaths might be a consideration.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Presumably you disapprove of the liberalisation of recreational drug laws in America?
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.
The obvious thing to cut- the thing governments always cut in this situation- is capital spends. If you never had it, or have got used to it having a leaky roof- you won't miss it.
Totally the wrong thing for making the nation more prosperous in the future, but if the unborn insist on not voting, that's their fault.
I see that Suella Braverman is doing Liz Truss a big favour by making it clear that Liz wasn't the worst candidate the party could have chosen.
Rishi I make favourite to be next PM now, probably by coronation having replaced Truss before Christmas.
However the odds are he still loses, even if less badly than Truss would and Suella Braverman I would make favourite to then become Leader of the Opposition. Braverman got the biggest applause from the audience at the Conservative conference, including a bigger and longer ovation than Truss got
I think people are forgetting what a Rishi Premiership would be like - great for the bankers and hedge funds, shit for ordinary people. And Wallace out.
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"
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!
"It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes."
Total horseshit. Just ask Leon just how much of a hellhole is the great State of Colorado.
Anyone who bases his travel plans on such nonsense should stay home. And hide under their bed.
EDIT - also a bit of a puzzler re: states like Washington - and Colorado - that are "blue" in parts (Seattle & most of King Co for example) but very "red" in others (Spokane Co outside the city and rest of eastern WA).
I'd put CO as Purple (although Blue tinged) @SeaShantyIrish2 but, TBF, I have heard the same from not a few people who went to New York and Chicago.
Though to be honest the blue states are not that different culturally from the UK and of course plenty of crime in London and Manchester now too.
If you want to experience a more distinctive America head to a red or purple state, they tend to be more rural with stunning scenery and generally friendly people even if they have more hardline conservative opinions
Another idea, there must be some way of changing the way that budgets work - in all sectors but especially Government departments. At the moment, you 'use it or lose it', leading to departments spending up to their budget, potentially wastefully. If instead departments were rewarded for being frugal (perhaps personally rewarded via a bonjs scheme), this could gently and positively result in efficiency and lower Government spending.
I can enlighten you with the decades-old news that the civil service and quangoes have had performace related pay, albeit a trivial level of bonus, so that has already been applied insofar as savings are part of the annual performance criteria for a given position.
You ight also like to consider the moral hazard of putting a manager into a position where she or he gets x% of saving y from the budget which is under that manager's control.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Avoiding EARLY deaths might be a consideration.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Presumably you disapprove of the liberalisation of recreational drug laws in America?
No. For one thing, unregulated illegal marijuana - the drug you must be talking about - are WAY more unhealthy than regulated legal marijuana.
And please stop projecting YOUR notions, prejudices, etc., etc. onto MY brain.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
I don't even know what you mean by "nannyism".
I presume it comes from the same ludicrous nonsense that produced Kwarteng's economic policy.
Serious question - should the resources of the NHS be disproportionately consumed by those unwilling to change the way they live even slightly to improve their own health?
I've no problem if you or Therese Coffey want to smoke, eat or drink yourselves to death - where I object is when the resources used to try to keep you alive are not available to help someone else.
Looking at Ms Coffey, it seems she is going for the trifecta.
I see that Suella Braverman is doing Liz Truss a big favour by making it clear that Liz wasn't the worst candidate the party could have chosen.
Rishi I make favourite to be next PM now, probably by coronation having replaced Truss before Christmas.
However the odds are he still loses, even if less badly than Truss would and Suella Braverman I would make favourite to then become Leader of the Opposition. Braverman got the biggest applause from the audience at the Conservative conference, including a bigger and longer ovation than Truss got
I think people are forgetting what a Rishi Premiership would be like - great for the bankers and hedge funds, shit for ordinary people. And Wallace out.
It was Truss and Kwarteng who cut the 45p top tax rate and ended the bankers' bonus cap, not Rishi and Rishi who provided the furlough for small businesses and offered a greater energy costs subsidy for ordinary voters than Truss
Seems Truss and allies are trying to regain power from Hunt this evening by wandering about making all sorts of uncosted promises on spending and challenging him to slap them down tomorrow...
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.
I’m not claiming that… low prices are definitely good for FTBs. Actively *falling* prices are not because of bank risk appetite
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
Start taxing electric car fuel in the same way as we tax petrol or diesel. It is inevitable anyway as the Government can't afford to lose all that tax in the next couple of decades.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Indeed, we had this discussion with @Richard_Nabavi when he falsely claimed the 1990s was a bad time to be a First Time Buyer following the house price falls, when the facts and figures show the polar opposite - we had record FTBs in the early to mid 90s and its been falling ever since.
Increasing house prices aids those who are on the ladder already, to the harm of those who aren't. Falling house prices aids those who aren't, to the harm of those who are. For those who scream til they're blue in the face about the harms of negative equity - there's groups losing out no matter what, there is no "victimless" option here.
Rising house prices, as @rcs1000 has said before, allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to get a bigger home when they move. Or it allows existing home owners to leverage the increase in their equity to enable them to buy a second home without moving.
Falling house prices wipes out equity from those already on the housing ladder, but those who aren't on the ladder have no equity to lose. Instead their deposit they're saving up becomes a higher share of the deposit and means a better LTV value and also they're not competing against those buying second etc homes by leveraging the house price changes.
To be precise falling house prices don’t help FTB (risk to banks means they are more conservative on lending).
The best time to be a FTB is when prices have fallen, have stabilised, and when banks are just beginning to recover their nerves.
But that’s really a detail around your basic thesis - lower prices clearly benefit first time buyers all other things being equal
Risk to banks means they're more conservative on lending, but they're more conservative in a manner that aids first time buyers.
If you're using your savings to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your savings has improved. If you're using your equity in your home or homes to buy a home, and house prices fall, the LTV ratio of your equity has worsened.
Even in house price falls, the housing market doesn't seize up completely. During such periods there are typically fewer house sales, but those house sales are dominated more by first time buyers who now find their savings are sufficient to buy a home, rather than existing home owners whose equity isn't there at the moment.
They basically don’t lend as much and/or require higher deposits. On average that doesn’t favour FTBs.
Love the determination of those with house price equity to claim that artificially inflated high prices are better for first time buyers rather than low prices. Not sure if they have managed to convince themselves of this absurdity or just don't want to admit that they want their own positions protected by the state.
It's a matter of timing.
Lower prices will make things better, but in the short term deposit requirements are increasing, so they're actually worse.
Pity the poor people who were going to be ready to buy next year. They'll have to wait some more.
Pay £500k this year or £400k in 2024? Which is better?
If you want a home to live in, rather than as an investment, and can pay the mortgage repayments, then I'd take an extra two years living in my own home, able to plant what I like in the garden, etc.
In which case you probably earn enough that the prices are not that important and you would get a mortgage comfortably in a recession!
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
I see that Suella Braverman is doing Liz Truss a big favour by making it clear that Liz wasn't the worst candidate the party could have chosen.
Rishi I make favourite to be next PM now, probably by coronation having replaced Truss before Christmas.
However the odds are he still loses, even if less badly than Truss would and Suella Braverman I would make favourite to then become Leader of the Opposition. Braverman got the biggest applause from the audience at the Conservative conference, including a bigger and longer ovation than Truss got
That tells us all we need to know about Conservative party members.
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!
"It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes."
Total horseshit. Just ask Leon just how much of a hellhole is the great State of Colorado.
Anyone who bases his travel plans on such nonsense should stay home. And hide under their bed.
EDIT - also a bit of a puzzler re: states like Washington - and Colorado - that are "blue" in parts (Seattle & most of King Co for example) but very "red" in others (Spokane Co outside the city and rest of eastern WA).
I'd put CO as Purple (although Blue tinged) @SeaShantyIrish2 but, TBF, I have heard the same from not a few people who went to New York and Chicago.
WA State is also more "purple" than most folks realize, though (like CO) it's been trending to Dems for decades.
You can find hellholes everywhere, anywhere IF you look hard enough.
BT’s pension scheme has revealed the value of its assets plummeted by an estimated £11bn in recent weeks, after the meltdown in UK government bond markets following Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget.
The disclosure in the annual report published by BT Pension Scheme (BTPS), one of the UK’s largest company retirement plans with almost 270,000 members, provides one of the first insights into the scale of the financial impact on funds.
Pension schemes with more than £1tn invested in them came under severe strain following a dramatic rise in interest rates on long-dated UK government bonds in the days after the disastrous mini-budget on 23 September.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
Start taxing electric car fuel in the same way as we tax petrol or diesel. It is inevitable anyway as the Government can't afford to lose all that tax in the next couple of decades.
Why not just bake in the tax cut over the long-term? Incentive the switch?
Another idea, there must be some way of changing the way that budgets work - in all sectors but especially Government departments. At the moment, you 'use it or lose it', leading to departments spending up to their budget, potentially wastefully. If instead departments were rewarded for being frugal (perhaps personally rewarded via a bonjs scheme), this could gently and positively result in efficiency and lower Government spending.
I can enlighten you with the decades-old news that the civil service and quangoes have had performace related pay, albeit a trivial level of bonus, so that has already been applied insofar as savings are part of the annual performance criteria for a given position.
You ight also like to consider the moral hazard of putting a manager into a position where she or he gets x% of saving y from the budget which is under that manager's control.
Be that as it may, departments must still spend their budgets, or see them reduced the following year. That is a perverse incentive. I don't know the exact solution, but solving it could be extremely powerful.
I see that Suella Braverman is doing Liz Truss a big favour by making it clear that Liz wasn't the worst candidate the party could have chosen.
Rishi I make favourite to be next PM now, probably by coronation having replaced Truss before Christmas.
However the odds are he still loses, even if less badly than Truss would and Suella Braverman I would make favourite to then become Leader of the Opposition. Braverman got the biggest applause from the audience at the Conservative conference, including a bigger and longer ovation than Truss got
That tells us all we need to know about Conservative party members.
What is wrong with Tory party members, she is a vile woman
Seems Truss and allies are trying to regain power from Hunt this evening by wandering about making all sorts of uncosted promises on spending and challenging him to slap them down tomorrow...
Let's play Blankety Blank:
"There is [blank] money left."
The Treasury, via their representative on Earth, will have to slap everyone down. God knows what happens when all the public sector unions go out on strike.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
Start taxing electric car fuel in the same way as we tax petrol or diesel. It is inevitable anyway as the Government can't afford to lose all that tax in the next couple of decades.
Yes, that has to be dealt with too.
Or road pricing. Charge per mile driven. Vary the charge depending on the time of day.
Without anyone really noticing, rejoining the EU seems now to be the “will of the people”.
I never actually thought I’d see that.
I still don’t think it will happen, but you won’t lose money on Starmer making closer EU relations a key policy plank.
No it isn't, the poll earlier today showed not even most Labour voters want to rejoin the EU and single market, only a majority of LD voters do.
The most popular option from all voters was a closer relationship with the EU but still outside the EU and single market, which as you say is as far as Starmer will go now
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
I don't even know what you mean by "nannyism".
I presume it comes from the same ludicrous nonsense that produced Kwarteng's economic policy.
Serious question - should the resources of the NHS be disproportionately consumed by those unwilling to change the way they live even slightly to improve their own health?
I've no problem if you or Therese Coffey want to smoke, eat or drink yourselves to death - where I object is when the resources used to try to keep you alive are not available to help someone else.
Looking at Ms Coffey, it seems she is going for the trifecta.
I believe it was shown some time ago that a life of smoking and obesity was actually cheaper for the State all things considered than one without. Horrible to think of it, but it's the difference between popping off at 73 from the ciggies or lingering till 93 with various ailments and dementia to boot.
I have reported previously from Sale's surprisingly middle class chippy. Today I am in the 'other' chippy where things are earthier. The talk is of trips to America. It seems universally agreed that the USA is splendid if you stick to the red states but the blue states are crime ridden hellholes. I'm gobsmacked. It's the first time in the UK I've heard anything positive said about the Republicans or negative about the Democrats. These are not views I'd expect to hear in the middle class chippy!
With a £ buying just a $ and some useless coins, I am impressed that you mix among chip shop customers who can still afford it.
As a general rule American cities are horrible, and the wilderness areas much nicer. New York and San Fancisco are exceptions, but far too many social problems on Americas streets, and armed social problems. Small town America is often Republican, but just as worth avoiding.
Lost my nerve a bit over Truss exiting before year end and did partial cash out.
Just starting to get the feeling that they may decide to keep the Regency going until next year just to pause and draw breath before they all decide what next.
Truss wont be going anywhere soon. Jeremy Hunt is the effective PM with Truss as a powerless figurehead. Its a solution that suits everyone at the moment in the tory party. Not good for the country sure but with the tories its always party over country
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
I should think Thérèse Coffin herself could die because of her reluctance to crack down on obesity.
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
"People could die because of Thérèse Coffey’s "ultra-libertarian ideological" reluctance to crack down on smoking and obesity, a Conservative ex-health minister has warned."
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
Avoiding EARLY deaths might be a consideration.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Presumably you disapprove of the liberalisation of recreational drug laws in America?
No. For one thing, unregulated illegal marijuana - the drug you must be talking about - are WAY more unhealthy than regulated legal marijuana.
And please stop projecting YOUR notions, prejudices, etc., etc. onto MY brain.
It is not projection to respond to what is written below your name and point out hypocrisy and muddled thinking.
In contrast to your rose-tinted view, the evidence is that legalisation has increased the prevalence of highly concentrated cannabis on the market in your state.
Seattle Times: Researchers warn of mental health risks of high-potency cannabis
When cannabis was legalized for recreational use in Washington beginning in 2014, extracted cannabis, which includes concentrates, made up about 9% of the market. Concentrates now make up 35%, according to 2020 data from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
I don't even know what you mean by "nannyism".
I presume it comes from the same ludicrous nonsense that produced Kwarteng's economic policy.
Serious question - should the resources of the NHS be disproportionately consumed by those unwilling to change the way they live even slightly to improve their own health?
I've no problem if you or Therese Coffey want to smoke, eat or drink yourselves to death - where I object is when the resources used to try to keep you alive are not available to help someone else.
Looking at Ms Coffey, it seems she is going for the trifecta.
I believe it was shown some time ago that a life of smoking and obesity was actually cheaper for the State all things considered than one without. Horrible to think of it, but it's the difference between popping off at 73 from the ciggies or lingering till 93 with various ailments and dementia to boot.
Nothing wrong with being long-lived if you are healthy, and we are more than units of economic production. We are parents, grandparents, the stalwarts of churches and of voluntary organisations. A nation that dis-respects its older folk is a nation that hates itself.
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
Ah yes, the one in which Treasury predicted failing growth, Cameron hinted at European war, and Obama suggested no US trade deal would be forthcoming.
hearing that rebel Tories have been asking Labour MPs to help them overthrow Liz Truss
Conservative backbenchers are growing increasingly frustrated with the PM's leadership, but currently lack any mechanisms to remove her
One Labour MP tells me: "Tories are speaking to us saying 'this is a complete nightmare and there is no way out'. We are being asked 'can't you do something about her?'"
Otherwise idiotic backbenchers and the SNP would be calling VONCs every day which would paralyse the government and parliament.
*The PM can also call for a vote of confidence.
But if enough Tories want her gone, they can get Starmer to call for the VoNC and then either abstain or vote against the govt. Admittedly they would then have to face the electorate...
Such MPs would automatically lose the Tory Whip.
MPs who know they will lose their seat at the election might not care about the whip.
Lost my nerve a bit over Truss exiting before year end and did partial cash out.
Just starting to get the feeling that they may decide to keep the Regency going until next year just to pause and draw breath before they all decide what next.
Truss wont be going anywhere soon. Jeremy Hunt is the effective PM with Truss as a powerless figurehead. Its a solution that suits everyone at the moment in the tory party. Not good for the country sure but with the tories its always party over country
I really don’t think it can continue - we’ve prided ourselves on being democratic. How is the current situations anything but “sensible”
The Remoaners really are hitting the whine this week.
Turns out Brexit was a load of gash. Who could have predicted?
I think lots of people did. There was some sort of project, if I remember rightly.
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
Without anyone really noticing, rejoining the EU seems now to be the “will of the people”.
I never actually thought I’d see that.
I still don’t think it will happen, but you won’t lose money on Starmer making closer EU relations a key policy plank.
No it isn't, the poll earlier today showed not even most Labour voters want to rejoin the EU and single market, only a majority of LD voters do.
The most popular option from all voters was a closer relationship with the EU but still outside the EU and single market
We may seek to rejoin one day though not in the near future. The initial phase will be, as it was in the 1950s, to seek negotiations with a view to agreeing a process for joining the European Union.
As you've always said, any package which would involve joining the Euro is likely to get short shrift with the British people. As for the Single Market and Freedom of Movement, a lot would depend on the circumstances prevailing at the time.
I do think a closer and less adversarial relationship is more likely once we have a non-Conservative Government.
It's worth noting looking at current polling Spain may well go centre-right at the next election and Germany is far from clear (the Union may lead but AfD are doing well and it may be the SPD and Greens will continue).
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Maybe he could list out all the other manifesto commitments that Johnson / Truss saw fit to ditch.
What a plonker. Hunt should brief that the Cabinet Office does not speak for Treasury. The last thing we need is Tory MPs making up budget statements on the fly.
Not quite sure how Hunt is going to square the public spending circle this evening.
On the one hand, it seems intense lobbying is going to stop any serious cuts to Defence, presumably Wallace threatened to walk if there was a real-term cut so it will presumably a standstill while keeping the 2.5% objective by 2026 as a commitment.
Hunt has also intimated services directly affecting and used by the public aren't to be touched - that suggests most local Government funding is safe though whether it will keep pace with inflation is doubtful.
Dos this therefore mean spending cuts won't do as much of the heavy lifting as they did with Osborne and we'll see tax rises (alcohol, fuel duty etc)? The proposed changes to the triple lock will help financially if not politically.
Yes, I think we will see more tax rises. There just isn't any room to do much on the spending side, and lots of demands which can't be ignored. I'm sure there will be the usual talk about efficiency savings, but they aren't easy to find and usually cost money upfront.
Ditch VED and put it on fuel duty. That offloads a whole department.
Start taxing electric car fuel in the same way as we tax petrol or diesel. It is inevitable anyway as the Government can't afford to lose all that tax in the next couple of decades.
Yes, that has to be dealt with too.
Or road pricing. Charge per mile driven. Vary the charge depending on the time of day.
Far better idea I think.
As for electric cars, electric car fuel is electricity. So we’re talking about adding a tax on domestic electricity. The fact electricity prices have soared because they are linked to the wholesale gas price is a bit like a tax, only it’s being kept by the generators. A windfall tax on these would be fiscally equivalent to delinking electricity from the gas price then taxing it.
But EV charging if done smartly is a very useful way to balance generation and demand. Low electric prices overnight during low demand and people can use this to charge up vehicles.
I'm with Coffey because anything is better than nannyism IMO.
I don't even know what you mean by "nannyism".
I presume it comes from the same ludicrous nonsense that produced Kwarteng's economic policy.
Serious question - should the resources of the NHS be disproportionately consumed by those unwilling to change the way they live even slightly to improve their own health?
I've no problem if you or Therese Coffey want to smoke, eat or drink yourselves to death - where I object is when the resources used to try to keep you alive are not available to help someone else.
Looking at Ms Coffey, it seems she is going for the trifecta.
I believe it was shown some time ago that a life of smoking and obesity was actually cheaper for the State all things considered than one without. Horrible to think of it, but it's the difference between popping off at 73 from the ciggies or lingering till 93 with various ailments and dementia to boot.
Nothing wrong with being long-lived if you are healthy, and we are more than units of economic production. We are parents, grandparents, the stalwarts of churches and of voluntary organisations. A nation that dis-respects its older folk is a nation that hates itself.
Oh, I completely agree, and well said. I was just highlighting a fact.
BT’s pension scheme has revealed the value of its assets plummeted by an estimated £11bn in recent weeks, after the meltdown in UK government bond markets following Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget.
The disclosure in the annual report published by BT Pension Scheme (BTPS), one of the UK’s largest company retirement plans with almost 270,000 members, provides one of the first insights into the scale of the financial impact on funds.
Pension schemes with more than £1tn invested in them came under severe strain following a dramatic rise in interest rates on long-dated UK government bonds in the days after the disastrous mini-budget on 23 September.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
Comments
Because the latter is just as critical to keeping Ukraine free from total Putinist reign of terror. AND to safeguarding the entire West.
This lot can't even do Lady Jane Grey properly.
Indeed pity we cannot ignore her altogether
The Tories have a perfect opportunity to do so now, but of course their polling weakness makes this exceptionally difficult. At 20%-ish in the polls, the wrinkly vote is pretty much all that they have left.
There's been a dramatic shift in our culture towards safetyism for him to say something like this. It's gone beyond trying to help people avoid preventable diseases or improve their quality of life, to treating all death as somehow avoidable.
However the odds are he still loses, even if less badly than Truss would and Suella Braverman I would make favourite to then become Leader of the Opposition. Braverman got the biggest applause from the audience at the Conservative conference, including a bigger and longer ovation than Truss got
Total horseshit. Just ask Leon just how much of a hellhole is the great State of Colorado.
Anyone who bases his travel plans on such nonsense should stay home. And hide under their bed.
EDIT - also a bit of a puzzler re: states like Washington - and Colorado - that are "blue" in parts (Seattle & most of King Co for example) but very "red" in others (Spokane Co outside the city and rest of eastern WA).
Remove 1 and a fair few others may simply fall and roll away.
Reason: People think in terms of cash.
ie It's easier to give a 5% rise when inflation is 10% than to make a 2% cut when inflation is zero.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
(a) that the taxatyion system is fiddled to favour Tory voters, sorry I mean older people with savings, given the savings and dividend allowances - there's £3K there tax free alone [though at the moment it's hard ot realise the 1K of savings].
(b) that the tax known as National Insurance does not apply to pensioners
I presume it comes from the same ludicrous nonsense that produced Kwarteng's economic policy.
Serious question - should the resources of the NHS be disproportionately consumed by those unwilling to change the way they live even slightly to improve their own health?
I've no problem if you or Therese Coffey want to smoke, eat or drink yourselves to death - where I object is when the resources used to try to keep you alive are not available to help someone else.
Not a single Minister raised a voice against the Truss/Karteng madness, so they are all culpable and any one could be tossed aside without the slightest problem. The only exception is Wallace. The rest stay only as long as Hunt wishes it.
Along with reducing health costs, as in a penny's worth of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
https://twitter.com/jude5456/status/1582259988843892738/photo/1
"The mandate for the European Commission was to bring the ECT in line with the Paris climate agreement. Despite many of the modernisations that are now in the negotiation outcome, we do not see how the ECT has been sufficiently aligned with the Paris Agreement."
https://twitter.com/BJVerbeek/status/1582415504009924613
Gives you the deep origins of the simplism and denialism that led to the #KamiKwasi
budget.
With @ChrisGiles_ @GeorgeWParker
@helentbiz ...and odd bit from me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO2lWmgEK1Y
Totally the wrong thing for making the nation more prosperous in the future, but if the unborn insist on not voting, that's their fault.
Love Yvette's "gluing themselves under desks" line though.
Maybe he could list out all the other manifesto commitments that Johnson / Truss saw fit to ditch.
If you want to experience a more distinctive America head to a red or purple state, they tend to be more rural with stunning scenery and generally friendly people even if they have more hardline conservative opinions
You ight also like to consider the moral hazard of putting a manager into a position where she or he gets x% of saving y from the budget which is under that manager's control.
And please stop projecting YOUR notions, prejudices, etc., etc. onto MY brain.
I never actually thought I’d see that.
I still don’t think it will happen, but you won’t lose money on Starmer making closer EU relations a key policy plank.
You can find hellholes everywhere, anywhere IF you look hard enough.
I’d have thought he’d he embarrassed to show his face after the wholesale rejection of his batty ideology by the markets and the public.
https://twitter.com/richardjmurphy/status/1582439197012799488?s=61&t=Y3u_JZgrIa7Bwkj42nfD7w
The disclosure in the annual report published by BT Pension Scheme (BTPS), one of the UK’s largest company retirement plans with almost 270,000 members, provides one of the first insights into the scale of the financial impact on funds.
Pension schemes with more than £1tn invested in them came under severe strain following a dramatic rise in interest rates on long-dated UK government bonds in the days after the disastrous mini-budget on 23 September.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/18/bts-pension-fund-fell-by-11bn-after-mini-budget
"There is [blank] money left."
The Treasury, via their representative on Earth, will have to slap everyone down. God knows what happens when all the public sector unions go out on strike.
Who could have predicted?
The most popular option from all voters was a closer relationship with the EU but still outside the EU and single market, which as you say is as far as Starmer will go now
(That the UK population are tending back towards "don't want to be out" isn't that surprising, if only because of demographics and projection screen nature of the 2016 campaign. The next awkward bit comes when "don't want to be out" runs up against "don't like the compromises or faff of getting back in". That is not going to be pretty.)
In contrast to your rose-tinted view, the evidence is that legalisation has increased the prevalence of highly concentrated cannabis on the market in your state.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health/should-wa-ban-high-potency-cannabis-researchers-warn-of-mental-health-risks/
Seattle Times: Researchers warn of mental health risks of high-potency cannabis
When cannabis was legalized for recreational use in Washington beginning in 2014, extracted cannabis, which includes concentrates, made up about 9% of the market. Concentrates now make up 35%, according to 2020 data from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
Well, they got that wrong!
As you've always said, any package which would involve joining the Euro is likely to get short shrift with the British people. As for the Single Market and Freedom of Movement, a lot would depend on the circumstances prevailing at the time.
I do think a closer and less adversarial relationship is more likely once we have a non-Conservative Government.
It's worth noting looking at current polling Spain may well go centre-right at the next election and Germany is far from clear (the Union may lead but AfD are doing well and it may be the SPD and Greens will continue).
Hunt should brief that the Cabinet Office does not speak for Treasury.
The last thing we need is Tory MPs making up budget statements on the fly.
As for electric cars, electric car fuel is electricity. So we’re talking about adding a tax on domestic electricity. The fact electricity prices have soared because they are linked to the wholesale gas price is a bit like a tax, only it’s being kept by the generators. A windfall tax on these would be fiscally equivalent to delinking electricity from the gas price then taxing it.
But EV charging if done smartly is a very useful way to balance generation and demand. Low electric prices overnight during low demand and people can use this to charge up vehicles.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.