As much as I want an immediate GE, it’s simply not going to happen. The Tories are smart enough to play the long game. Starmar is pretty hopeless as the YouGov net favourability ratings show; yes, he may be significantly better than the actors from the filth that is Tory party but the guy has zero political awareness.
On your first point, I'm inclined to agree although listening to Rory Stewart on the Rest is Politics earlier he relayed an exchange with a Tory MP who admonished him for constantly saying that MPs will do whatever they can to avoid a GE in order to cling onto their seats. The Tory MP claimed that many first time MPs were sick of the whole thing and wanted out. I'm not 100% convinced because there's a big difference between not wanting to do a job and imminently making yourself unemployed. However, it should certainly be factored into predictions.
On your second, I reckon Starmer's very good at politics.
For the average Tory redwall MP the £84,144 MPs salary is probably the most they have or will ever earn even if some Home Counties Tory MPs might be able to make more money outside
No wealthy people in the 'red wall' then?
Redwall seats have below the national average earnings and a below the national average median houseprice
You're exhibiting a typical southerner's knowledge of the north. I live in County Durham and earn more than £84,144, and although my political judgment is better than my MP (Richard Holden - if he and others had listened to people like me saying vote Kemi none of this nonsense would have happened) I haven't the slightest doubt he is capable of significantly higher earnings. We probably have more disposable income than you tbh - most of us own our own homes without having to rely on inheritance, for a start.
You still earn less and those of us who own property in the Home counties have double the assets you do. Though I accept it is cheaper to get on the property level in the first place up North.
Holden was just a special adviser before becoming an MP, not a QC or CEO
What use are those assets exactly? As far as I can see the only use is to sell them so you can move up north eventually. But that clearly can't work for the entire population so en aggregate you're all stuck in a gilded cage as far as I can see. Except the gilding is in the cage's handle and the inner furnishings are ikea.
You don't have to be a KC or a CEO to make more than an MP's salary. At a guess 84k is about 95-97th percentile. Or put another way, somewhere about 1 in 30 or 1 in 20. Not unique or particularly special.
While I doubt special advisers make that much, Holden's perfectly capable of getting far more than that in the private sector. And unless something absolutely seismic happens will soon have to!
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children in private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
Things like lack of holidays and no maternity pay and many more issues make life for the average American somewhat worse than life for the average west European - even tho the American is richer on paper. Yet Americans also have hard to define advantages: more freedom space and mobility
But America has many more VERY rich people who do extremely nicely (and spend a lot of time in Europe…)
For the bottom 10-20% America is vastly worse
Whether it's currency or no Russians or something else I don't know but the South of france has more Americans now than I've ever seen before. Many with houses there. They're certainly more obvious than the English
If I may pick your brain, what’s the South of France like out of season in the winter? During the pandemic I found a lovely flat in Cap d’Antibes for £1200 for the month of January, but in the end I couldn’t go. Post-pandemic it’s about £2000 but still doable.
I understand that, a hundred years ago prior to AC, the winter was the peak season, but this has since inverted.
In my opinion like no where else. Perfect climate never completely quiet and always lots to do and see. Cap d'Antibles is as nice as anywhere, if a bit crowded in Summer. From Cap d'Antibles to Monaco you can't really go wrong. Never usually gets above 28 or below 16
I'd avoid July and August but the other ten months are all good. I particulatly like Antibles in March and April where you can see the snow on the mountains above the fort and see people swimming in the sea. Some great galleries-Picasso spent the war there- and more cafe and restaurants than you'll find in Soho and Covent Garden put together. £2000 a month sounds good.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children in private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
Things like lack of holidays and no maternity pay and many more issues make life for the average American somewhat worse than life for the average west European - even tho the American is richer on paper. Yet Americans also have hard to define advantages: more freedom space and mobility
But America has many more VERY rich people who do extremely nicely (and spend a lot of time in Europe…)
For the bottom 10-20% America is vastly worse
There have been times when the US was one of the best places to live for the average person. The 1970s and 1990s perhaps.
More like 1950s - 1970s
I’d say it’s still the case. Again, if you are a middle class (in the American sense) white person, it’s all set up for you.
1950s to 1970s for working and lower middle class in USA, as well as above. Even for smaller but still significant share of Blacks, Latinos and Asians. And of course for those higher up the socio-economic ladder.
Post WW2 economic and demographic boom, along with growth in higher education boosted muchly by GI Bill, lead to great(er) expansion of the economy. In particular manufacturing, creating good jobs and opportunities (including cheap mortgages) for millions of Americans from modest backgrounds including wrong side of the tracks and back in the boondocks.
Children of the Depression and the War. Who became Fathers and Mothers of the Boomers. They did their damdest.
It is there more successful (certainly materially) children and grandchildren who are crowding your high-rent districts and jet-set (21st-century style) fleshpots.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children in private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
Things like lack of holidays and no maternity pay and many more issues make life for the average American somewhat worse than life for the average west European - even tho the American is richer on paper. Yet Americans also have hard to define advantages: more freedom space and mobility
But America has many more VERY rich people who do extremely nicely (and spend a lot of time in Europe…)
For the bottom 10-20% America is vastly worse
There have been times when the US was one of the best places to live for the average person. The 1970s and 1990s perhaps.
More like 1950s - 1970s
I’d say it’s still the case. Again, if you are a middle class (in the American sense) white person, it’s all set up for you.
You need to be pretty close to the top 20% these days I'd say.
If you look at purchasing power, per the FT article below, it looks like the top 60% do as well or better than wealthy European peers.
But these numbers don’t (I think) account for healthcare costs, so let’s compensate for that and say the top 50%
That “smells” about right, speaking as someone who lived in the UK for 20 years and now lives in the US.
America is vast though. Clearly there are significant differences between Denver, Baltimore, and New York.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children in private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
Things like lack of holidays and no maternity pay and many more issues make life for the average American somewhat worse than life for the average west European - even tho the American is richer on paper. Yet Americans also have hard to define advantages: more freedom space and mobility
But America has many more VERY rich people who do extremely nicely (and spend a lot of time in Europe…)
For the bottom 10-20% America is vastly worse
Whether it's currency or no Russians or something else I don't know but the South of france has more Americans now than I've ever seen before. Many with houses there. They're certainly more obvious than the English
If I may pick your brain, what’s the South of France like out of season in the winter? During the pandemic I found a lovely flat in Cap d’Antibes for £1200 for the month of January, but in the end I couldn’t go. Post-pandemic it’s about £2000 but still doable.
I understand that, a hundred years ago prior to AC, the winter was the peak season, but this has since inverted.
In my opinion like no where else. Perfect climate never completely quiet and always lots to do and see. Cap d'Antibles is as nice as anywhere, if a bit crowded in Summer. From Cap d'Antibles to Monaco you can't really go wrong. Never usually gets above 28 or below 16
I'd avoid July and August but the other ten months are all good. I particulatly like Antibles in March and April where you can see the snow on the mountains above the fort and see people swimming in the sea. Some great galleries-Picasso spent the war there- and more cafe and restaurants than you'll find in Soho and Covent Garden put together. £2000 a month sounds good.
Great! Will come out for Jour de St-Patrice!! And I'll bring the green beer!!!
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children in private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
Things like lack of holidays and no maternity pay and many more issues make life for the average American somewhat worse than life for the average west European - even tho the American is richer on paper. Yet Americans also have hard to define advantages: more freedom space and mobility
But America has many more VERY rich people who do extremely nicely (and spend a lot of time in Europe…)
For the bottom 10-20% America is vastly worse
Whether it's currency or no Russians or something else I don't know but the South of france has more Americans now than I've ever seen before. Many with houses there. They're certainly more obvious than the English
If I may pick your brain, what’s the South of France like out of season in the winter? During the pandemic I found a lovely flat in Cap d’Antibes for £1200 for the month of January, but in the end I couldn’t go. Post-pandemic it’s about £2000 but still doable.
I understand that, a hundred years ago prior to AC, the winter was the peak season, but this has since inverted.
In my opinion like no where else. Perfect climate never completely quiet and always lots to do and see. Cap d'Antibles is as nice as anywhere, if a bit crowded in Summer. From Cap d'Antibles to Monaco you can't really go wrong. Never usually gets above 28 or below 16
I'd avoid July and August but the other ten months are all good. I particulatly like Antibles in March and April where you can see the snow on the mountains above the fort and see people swimming in the sea. Some great galleries-Picasso spent the war there- and more cafe and restaurants than you'll find in Soho and Covent Garden put together. £2000 a month sounds good.
Thanks. I shall try for late March, because I would like to see the grounds of the Hotel du Cap, and it opens 1st April. May have to stump up for lunch to get past security, though.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
Oh definitely. The best thing about New York is getting out of New York.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
However they also have no public healthcare, state schools of not great standard compared to other OECD nations and if they lose their job little to no welfare state.
They pay low taxes and can afford big cars, big houses, and garages full of foot spas and jet-skis.
I agree that there are significant downsides but I think most - let’s say the middle 50/60% would quite happily trade, say, Leeds for Denver.
Denver is unusually nice for an American city (despite its problems). Relatively low crime etc
It is not Chicago or Pittsburgh or Baltimore or St Louis
My gut is that a lot of crime is driven by homeless heroin/crack/crystal meth addicts, and that they are attracted to places where you can live year round, and places where there is a lot of panhandling potential.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children in private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
Things like lack of holidays and no maternity pay and many more issues make life for the average American somewhat worse than life for the average west European - even tho the American is richer on paper. Yet Americans also have hard to define advantages: more freedom space and mobility
But America has many more VERY rich people who do extremely nicely (and spend a lot of time in Europe…)
For the bottom 10-20% America is vastly worse
Whether it's currency or no Russians or something else I don't know but the South of france has more Americans now than I've ever seen before. Many with houses there. They're certainly more obvious than the English
If I may pick your brain, what’s the South of France like out of season in the winter? During the pandemic I found a lovely flat in Cap d’Antibes for £1200 for the month of January, but in the end I couldn’t go. Post-pandemic it’s about £2000 but still doable.
I understand that, a hundred years ago prior to AC, the winter was the peak season, but this has since inverted.
In my opinion like no where else. Perfect climate never completely quiet and always lots to do and see. Cap d'Antibles is as nice as anywhere, if a bit crowded in Summer. From Cap d'Antibles to Monaco you can't really go wrong. Never usually gets above 28 or below 16
I'd avoid July and August but the other ten months are all good. I particulatly like Antibles in March and April where you can see the snow on the mountains above the fort and see people swimming in the sea. Some great galleries-Picasso spent the war there- and more cafe and restaurants than you'll find in Soho and Covent Garden put together. £2000 a month sounds good.
Great! Will come out for Jour de St-Patrice!! And I'll bring the green beer!!!
I have to say the American influence hasn't all been benign. They have had a big influence on the cuisine and not in a good way! Fast food used not to exist there but now you can't move for moules frites and take-away pizza!
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children in private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
Things like lack of holidays and no maternity pay and many more issues make life for the average American somewhat worse than life for the average west European - even tho the American is richer on paper. Yet Americans also have hard to define advantages: more freedom space and mobility
But America has many more VERY rich people who do extremely nicely (and spend a lot of time in Europe…)
For the bottom 10-20% America is vastly worse
Whether it's currency or no Russians or something else I don't know but the South of france has more Americans now than I've ever seen before. Many with houses there. They're certainly more obvious than the English
If I may pick your brain, what’s the South of France like out of season in the winter? During the pandemic I found a lovely flat in Cap d’Antibes for £1200 for the month of January, but in the end I couldn’t go. Post-pandemic it’s about £2000 but still doable.
I understand that, a hundred years ago prior to AC, the winter was the peak season, but this has since inverted.
In my opinion like no where else. Perfect climate never completely quiet and always lots to do and see. Cap d'Antibles is as nice as anywhere, if a bit crowded in Summer. From Cap d'Antibles to Monaco you can't really go wrong. Never usually gets above 28 or below 16
I'd avoid July and August but the other ten months are all good. I particulatly like Antibles in March and April where you can see the snow on the mountains above the fort and see people swimming in the sea. Some great galleries-Picasso spent the war there- and more cafe and restaurants than you'll find in Soho and Covent Garden put together. £2000 a month sounds good.
Thanks. I shall try for late March, because I would like to see the grounds of the Hotel du Cap, and it opens 1st April. May have to stump up for lunch to get past security, though.
Someone gave me a book on the Hotel du Cap for Christmas So fascinating that I thought I'd stay a night there last month. It was 4500 euros for a night so I decided not to.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children in private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
Things like lack of holidays and no maternity pay and many more issues make life for the average American somewhat worse than life for the average west European - even tho the American is richer on paper. Yet Americans also have hard to define advantages: more freedom space and mobility
But America has many more VERY rich people who do extremely nicely (and spend a lot of time in Europe…)
For the bottom 10-20% America is vastly worse
Whether it's currency or no Russians or something else I don't know but the South of france has more Americans now than I've ever seen before. Many with houses there. They're certainly more obvious than the English
If I may pick your brain, what’s the South of France like out of season in the winter? During the pandemic I found a lovely flat in Cap d’Antibes for £1200 for the month of January, but in the end I couldn’t go. Post-pandemic it’s about £2000 but still doable.
I understand that, a hundred years ago prior to AC, the winter was the peak season, but this has since inverted.
In my opinion like no where else. Perfect climate never completely quiet and always lots to do and see. Cap d'Antibles is as nice as anywhere, if a bit crowded in Summer. From Cap d'Antibles to Monaco you can't really go wrong. Never usually gets above 28 or below 16
I'd avoid July and August but the other ten months are all good. I particulatly like Antibles in March and April where you can see the snow on the mountains above the fort and see people swimming in the sea. Some great galleries-Picasso spent the war there- and more cafe and restaurants than you'll find in Soho and Covent Garden put together. £2000 a month sounds good.
Great! Will come out for Jour de St-Patrice!! And I'll bring the green beer!!!
I have to say the American influence hasn't all been benign. They have had a big influence on the cuisine and not in a good way! Fast food used not to exist there but now you can't move for moules frites and take-away pizza!
You think you got it bad? Here in my neck of the woods you can't go two blocks without tripping over a French bakery! Trendy, tasty, above all pricey!
May I suggest you visit the Redneck Riviera someday for bit of a change? Plenty of good grub if you look for it. Though best avoided during Spring Break!
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
However they also have no public healthcare, state schools of not great standard compared to other OECD nations and if they lose their job little to no welfare state.
They pay low taxes and can afford big cars, big houses, and garages full of foot spas and jet-skis.
I agree that there are significant downsides but I think most - let’s say the middle 50/60% would quite happily trade, say, Leeds for Denver.
Denver is unusually nice for an American city (despite its problems). Relatively low crime etc
It is not Chicago or Pittsburgh or Baltimore or St Louis
My gut is that a lot of crime is driven by homeless heroin/crack/crystal meth addicts, and that they are attracted to places where you can live year round, and places where there is a lot of panhandling potential.
Denver fails on both counts.
Topically with Leon's Pike Peak pictures yesterday, I'm told by my friend who lives in Colorado Springs that it has a significant and pretty new homelessness problem, supposedly driven by an out of control housing market due to a mass of incomers. Or something.
Roger, did you happen to see my comment upthread re: HMG with Kermit the Frog as PM (aka GOF)?
On that note, just want you to know that I'd like to pitch you on helping to produce, as a play, movie, whatever you think best) my longstanding, personal creative dream:
Roger, did you happen to see my comment upthread re: HMG with Kermit the Frog as PM (aka GOF)?
On that note, just want you to know that I'd like to pitch you on helping to produce, as a play, movie, whatever you think best) my longstanding, personal creative dream:
Roger, did you happen to see my comment upthread re: HMG with Kermit the Frog as PM (aka GOF)?
On that note, just want you to know that I'd like to pitch you on helping to produce, as a play, movie, whatever you think best) my longstanding, personal creative dream:
"Twelve Angry Muppets"
You need Sydney Lumet but I think he's dead.....
He'd be perfect!
I'd be honored. Your a big help - thanks!
However, upon mature reflection, an not sure Lumet shares (or rather shared) my vision for this project; doubtful he could capture the dramatic, emotional tension between a motley assemblage of diverse hand-puppets versus one lone frog unafraid to croak for justice - and keep on croaking!
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The new growth across the sunbelt in places like Denver, Austin, Raleigh etc has a far better standard of living than the older metro areas like LA, Chicago, New York. The urban planning is better, the traffic is lower, the roads are tree-lined, the strip malls are actually pleasant places.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The new growth across the sunbelt in places like Denver, Austin, Raleigh etc has a far better standard of living than the older metro areas like LA, Chicago, New York. The urban planning is better, the traffic is lower, the roads are tree-lined, the strip malls are actually pleasant places.
No they’re not. And I’m here right now. In downtown Denver
I would make them fairly clear favourites: probably a 60-65% chance.
Nevada electoral basics, without direct reference to any 2022 statewide candidates:
1. Ever-changing electorate, massive population growth almost all the time means it's different electorate virtually every cycle
2. Two-thirds of NV vote is Clark County (Las Vegas), bit less than 20% from Washoe County (Reno) and about 15% from the vast and majestic expanse of in-between-ness that is the Cow Counties.
3. Clark is Democratic, but with significant Republican minority and plenty of swing voters so margins matter; Washoe less Democratic but otherwise similar; and Cow Counties are overwelmingly GOP.
4. Nevada is land of American Dream-seakers, 2nd-chancers and above all young(ish) working families, from every part of the USA and the world, including lots of Latinos and folks formerly called Mormons.
5. In recent decades, Nevada especially hit by recession, lending crisis, COVID, you name it, hence hard-pressed Nevadans (see #4) are HIGHLY sensitive to economic issues in particular cost of living, especially (in this far-flung state) gasoline prices. Thus other issues, notably abortion, are important but perhaps less so that cost of living.
6. Trump embraced by most NV GOP, though endured by others. On other hand, Democrats have been badly split between progressive challengers versus establishment moderates. Plus overreach by some in both camps resulted in redistricting that could cost Dems several US House seats quite unnecessarily.
6. Harry Reed is no more, and you can say that again. And again.
"Opinion UK politics & policy Labour’s progressive dream has died along with the Tories’ libertarian one If he is elected UK premier, Keir Starmer won’t have the money to do very much JANAN GANESH"
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
In this discussion Hunt is being assigned agency he does not have. There are not the votes in the Commons to remove the triple lock. Labour will vote against as would at least 50 Tory MPs, probably a lot more.
I am not so sure about that. Of course you may well be right but I think the mood at the moment is such that he could get away with it. Indeed it is worth remembering that when the vote on the Triple lock came before the house last September, Labour did not support retaining it. Instead they abstained. So there is at least some element of realism at work there.
We all know how a budget vote on ending the triple lock will turn out. Labour will decide, after careful consideration, that making poor, vulnerable pensioners with scarcely two pennies to rub together pay the cost of the Kamikwazi budget and multi-million pound bonuses for evil City bankers is abhorrent, and vote against.
All the Tory backbenchers will then be made to leave their fingerprints on the bloody knife. They do it, bye bye grey vote. They refuse, general election. Checkmate, crown Starmer King.
There hasn't been quite enough discussion about what SKS and Labour would actually do when in government about the impossible task facing them - much the same as the impossible task facing Hunt's government. Winning the next GE is the easy bit.
i remember last time labour got in and the tories were wiped out nationalist parties like the bnp and later ukip started to have electoral success. The BNP made big breakthroughs in the 2002 to 2006 period when the Tories were moribund...now we have a much worse economic situation so something like that could well happen again this time on a bigger scale
I went to the local election pages of the BBC to see the extent of this BNP surge:
And weirdly, other than 13 councillors in 2003, there didn't seem to be any surge
Think they got about 30 gains in 2006 and took control of barking and dagenham council...so yes there was a surge
I'm pretty sure they never took control of Barking and Dagenham. They appeared to do well as the NOTA vote in a few wards where the Conservatives did not stand.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The new growth across the sunbelt in places like Denver, Austin, Raleigh etc has a far better standard of living than the older metro areas like LA, Chicago, New York. The urban planning is better, the traffic is lower, the roads are tree-lined, the strip malls are actually pleasant places.
No they’re not. And I’m here right now. In downtown Denver
Denver was started by a gold rush, and has been boom & bust pretty much ever since. Downtown also pretty old (for USA west of Kansas City anyway). Some suburban areas like what WillG is saying, but really that kind of thing is more out in Boulder and Colorado Springs (I think).
I'd agree that Hunt's apparent embrace of Osbornian austerity is a bad thing, and that we should still aim at growth. I'm damned if I can see what "the left" has to do with this.
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The new growth across the sunbelt in places like Denver, Austin, Raleigh etc has a far better standard of living than the older metro areas like LA, Chicago, New York. The urban planning is better, the traffic is lower, the roads are tree-lined, the strip malls are actually pleasant places.
No they’re not. And I’m here right now. In downtown Denver
@WillG has a point: suburban Denver - especially Boulder and the areas on the Rockies side - is delightful. It's affordable* (by US standards) with close to zero unemployment, good schools, decent restaurants, and access to some of the best skiing and mountain biking in the world.
On the other hand, it is ugly suburban sprawl, so you can't have everything.
* Well, not Boulder, but much of the rest of Western Denver
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
In this discussion Hunt is being assigned agency he does not have. There are not the votes in the Commons to remove the triple lock. Labour will vote against as would at least 50 Tory MPs, probably a lot more.
I am not so sure about that. Of course you may well be right but I think the mood at the moment is such that he could get away with it. Indeed it is worth remembering that when the vote on the Triple lock came before the house last September, Labour did not support retaining it. Instead they abstained. So there is at least some element of realism at work there.
We all know how a budget vote on ending the triple lock will turn out. Labour will decide, after careful consideration, that making poor, vulnerable pensioners with scarcely two pennies to rub together pay the cost of the Kamikwazi budget and multi-million pound bonuses for evil City bankers is abhorrent, and vote against.
All the Tory backbenchers will then be made to leave their fingerprints on the bloody knife. They do it, bye bye grey vote. They refuse, general election. Checkmate, crown Starmer King.
There hasn't been quite enough discussion about what SKS and Labour would actually do when in government about the impossible task facing them - much the same as the impossible task facing Hunt's government. Winning the next GE is the easy bit.
i remember last time labour got in and the tories were wiped out nationalist parties like the bnp and later ukip started to have electoral success. The BNP made big breakthroughs in the 2002 to 2006 period when the Tories were moribund...now we have a much worse economic situation so something like that could well happen again this time on a bigger scale
I went to the local election pages of the BBC to see the extent of this BNP surge:
And weirdly, other than 13 councillors in 2003, there didn't seem to be any surge
Think they got about 30 gains in 2006 and took control of barking and dagenham council...so yes there was a surge
I'm pretty sure they never took control of Barking and Dagenham. They appeared to do well as the NOTA vote in a few wards where the Conservatives did not stand.
They got nowhere near control - at their strongest the BNP had 12 seats to Labour's 38, off 17% of the vote.
So a strong performance - in one Borough, in one year - but nowhere near control.
(It should also be noted that in 2010, the BNP lost every single one of the seats they were defending.)
coming back to the thread, is it me or does it seem that Truss has bought a little bit of breathing space? I get the impression that deals have been done behind the scenes to not quite give her the push... not sure what the final price is but no doubt there will be some shifts about to happen.
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
Yes: I know some people who are being absolutely hammered right now. They'd bet that the weather would be colder, the wind less strong, and that Europe's gas storage would be getting hit.
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe still has full gas storage facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
Yes: I know some people who are being absolutely hammered right now. They'd bet that the weather would be colder, the wind less strong, and that Europe's gas storage would be getting hit.
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe is still filling LNG facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/
I thought Rough was closed in 2017/2018, at least 2 years after the election.
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
Yes: I know some people who are being absolutely hammered right now. They'd bet that the weather would be colder, the wind less strong, and that Europe's gas storage would be getting hit.
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe is still filling LNG facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/
I thought Rough was closed in 2017/2018, at least 2 years after the election.
That was when storage contracts came to an end. The decision not to subsidize Rough was Davey's. To be fair, this was a period when there were very serious pressures on every government department to save money.
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
Yes: I know some people who are being absolutely hammered right now. They'd bet that the weather would be colder, the wind less strong, and that Europe's gas storage would be getting hit.
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe is still filling LNG facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/
I thought Rough was closed in 2017/2018, at least 2 years after the election.
That was when storage contracts came to an end. The decision not to subsidize Rough was Davey's. To be fair, this was a period when there were very serious pressures on every government department to save money.
The serious mistake at that time was a strategic one by the Chancellor - not allowing enough spending on capital projects. The benefits we might have reaped from more borrowing at then very low long term rates to fund large scale energy infrastructure projects make the Rough decision look a rounding error, if that.
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
Yes: I know some people who are being absolutely hammered right now. They'd bet that the weather would be colder, the wind less strong, and that Europe's gas storage would be getting hit.
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe is still filling LNG facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/
I thought Rough was closed in 2017/2018, at least 2 years after the election.
That was when storage contracts came to an end. The decision not to subsidize Rough was Davey's. To be fair, this was a period when there were very serious pressures on every government department to save money.
The serious mistake at that time was a strategic one by the Chancellor - not allowing enough spending on capital projects. The benefits we might have reaped from more borrowing at then very low long term rates to fund large scale energy infrastructure projects make the Rough decision look a rounding error, if that.
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The new growth across the sunbelt in places like Denver, Austin, Raleigh etc has a far better standard of living than the older metro areas like LA, Chicago, New York. The urban planning is better, the traffic is lower, the roads are tree-lined, the strip malls are actually pleasant places.
No they’re not. And I’m here right now. In downtown Denver
@WillG has a point: suburban Denver - especially Boulder and the areas on the Rockies side - is delightful. It's affordable* (by US standards) with close to zero unemployment, good schools, decent restaurants, and access to some of the best skiing and mountain biking in the world.
On the other hand, it is ugly suburban sprawl, so you can't have everything.
* Well, not Boulder, but much of the rest of Western Denver
I haven't been skiing since 1995 on a school trip. Assumed I would do it again but never got round to it, and now it probably costs a lot more than it did then. I don't think people paid much to go on the school trip.
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
Yes: I know some people who are being absolutely hammered right now. They'd bet that the weather would be colder, the wind less strong, and that Europe's gas storage would be getting hit.
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe is still filling LNG facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/
I thought Rough was closed in 2017/2018, at least 2 years after the election.
That was when storage contracts came to an end. The decision not to subsidize Rough was Davey's. To be fair, this was a period when there were very serious pressures on every government department to save money.
The serious mistake at that time was a strategic one by the Chancellor - not allowing enough spending on capital projects. The benefits we might have reaped from more borrowing at then very low long term rates to fund large scale energy infrastructure projects make the Rough decision look a rounding error, if that.
That's a fair point.
You could argue it's partly Brown's fault too. Having spent years conflating current spending with investment, and also creating badly managed PFI programmes, he had given government investment spending a bad name. (And possibly reduced the ability of the civil service properly to plan projects, though that's just speculation on my part.)
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The new growth across the sunbelt in places like Denver, Austin, Raleigh etc has a far better standard of living than the older metro areas like LA, Chicago, New York. The urban planning is better, the traffic is lower, the roads are tree-lined, the strip malls are actually pleasant places.
No they’re not. And I’m here right now. In downtown Denver
@WillG has a point: suburban Denver - especially Boulder and the areas on the Rockies side - is delightful. It's affordable* (by US standards) with close to zero unemployment, good schools, decent restaurants, and access to some of the best skiing and mountain biking in the world.
On the other hand, it is ugly suburban sprawl, so you can't have everything.
* Well, not Boulder, but much of the rest of Western Denver
I haven't been skiing since 1995 on a school trip. Assumed I would do it again but never got round to it, and now it probably costs a lot more than it did then. I don't think people paid much to go on the school trip.
Skiing in the US is very different up Europe. No one goes on a week long skiing holiday. Instead they get up, chuck the kids in the back of the car, and drive to the ski slope.
In LA, the nearest ski slope are 80-85 minutes away at Mt Baldy, and there's a pretty decent set of slopes at Big Bear. The US's largest ski resort (Mammoth) is a little further, but many people are happy to drive down Saturday morning and back Sunday evening - something that is inconceivable in the UK.
If you lived in Colorado though, with some of the most beautiful natural scenery in the world, would you really want to work in Denver every day rather than work at home and admire the view? If you want a big city lifestyle you would move to New York or Chicago or LA
But they don’t live up in the sometimes-lovely mountains. They all live in endless identikit suburbs that sprawl around Denver city/downtown. I’ve seen them. Sometimes they come in at night to drink but by day it is a zombie city and - so the guide told me - city businesses that held out during the pandemic hoping things would return are now giving up
A culture that abandons its city centres is in secular decline. It’s what happened to Roman Britain in the 4th century just before Rome quit for good
It’s paradoxical. Americans all say they want a lovable walkable city that is more like Europe. But they don’t do anything to make that happen, they do the opposite. And they insist on driving private cars, which ultimately kills cities
The contrast with happily bustling central Seville a few weeks ago is stark
Try NYC on an average weeknight or afternoon and it would still be bustling I expect. As I said, Denver is just the biggest city in Colorado, it is not a global metropolis
But how much of that in NYC is tourists? That's treating a city as a museum exhibit to be gawked at, rather than a real living thing.
I know that of my family in NYC quite a few of them are still working at home a fair bit. It's definitely a change. Not convinced that it's the death of western civilisation that Leon thinks it is, but I have no problem admitting to being frequently wrong.
NYC is ever bustling but also incredibly noisy and very dirty. Nice to visit, to live - not so sure.
When comparing US and European stats, don’t be misled by the average. Always ask to see the comparison of the medians. Therein lies the story.
While you have a point re: the Big Apple, there is a LOT of New York within the city limits. Have two friends who lived in NYC, one on Staten Island, other on City Island off the Bronx.
Less gritty, dirty, crowded both those places, than in most of Greater London, urban Midlands, etc., etc.
Actually, much of NYC outside of Manhattan sorta reminds me of The Smoke, just with straighter streets.
I was watching some kids stomping on the cockroaches that were walking down a street on Lower East Side, and thought, that’s a game we don’t see at home!
If you lived in Colorado though, with some of the most beautiful natural scenery in the world, would you really want to work in Denver every day rather than work at home and admire the view? If you want a big city lifestyle you would move to New York or Chicago or LA
But they don’t live up in the sometimes-lovely mountains. They all live in endless identikit suburbs that sprawl around Denver city/downtown. I’ve seen them. Sometimes they come in at night to drink but by day it is a zombie city and - so the guide told me - city businesses that held out during the pandemic hoping things would return are now giving up
A culture that abandons its city centres is in secular decline. It’s what happened to Roman Britain in the 4th century just before Rome quit for good
It’s paradoxical. Americans all say they want a lovable walkable city that is more like Europe. But they don’t do anything to make that happen, they do the opposite. And they insist on driving private cars, which ultimately kills cities
The contrast with happily bustling central Seville a few weeks ago is stark
Try NYC on an average weeknight or afternoon and it would still be bustling I expect. As I said, Denver is just the biggest city in Colorado, it is not a global metropolis
But how much of that in NYC is tourists? That's treating a city as a museum exhibit to be gawked at, rather than a real living thing.
I know that of my family in NYC quite a few of them are still working at home a fair bit. It's definitely a change. Not convinced that it's the death of western civilisation that Leon thinks it is, but I have no problem admitting to being frequently wrong.
NYC is ever bustling but also incredibly noisy and very dirty. Nice to visit, to live - not so sure.
When comparing US and European stats, don’t be misled by the average. Always ask to see the comparison of the medians. Therein lies the story.
While you have a point re: the Big Apple, there is a LOT of New York within the city limits. Have two friends who lived in NYC, one on Staten Island, other on City Island off the Bronx.
Less gritty, dirty, crowded both those places, than in most of Greater London, urban Midlands, etc., etc.
Actually, much of NYC outside of Manhattan sorta reminds me of The Smoke, just with straighter streets.
I was watching some kids stomping on the cockroaches that were walking down a street on Lower East Side, and thought, that’s a game we don’t see at home!
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The new growth across the sunbelt in places like Denver, Austin, Raleigh etc has a far better standard of living than the older metro areas like LA, Chicago, New York. The urban planning is better, the traffic is lower, the roads are tree-lined, the strip malls are actually pleasant places.
No they’re not. And I’m here right now. In downtown Denver
@WillG has a point: suburban Denver - especially Boulder and the areas on the Rockies side - is delightful. It's affordable* (by US standards) with close to zero unemployment, good schools, decent restaurants, and access to some of the best skiing and mountain biking in the world.
On the other hand, it is ugly suburban sprawl, so you can't have everything.
* Well, not Boulder, but much of the rest of Western Denver
I haven't been skiing since 1995 on a school trip. Assumed I would do it again but never got round to it, and now it probably costs a lot more than it did then. I don't think people paid much to go on the school trip.
Skiing in the US is very different up Europe. No one goes on a week long skiing holiday. Instead they get up, chuck the kids in the back of the car, and drive to the ski slope.
In LA, the nearest ski slope are 80-85 minutes away at Mt Baldy, and there's a pretty decent set of slopes at Big Bear. The US's largest ski resort (Mammoth) is a little further, but many people are happy to drive down Saturday morning and back Sunday evening - something that is inconceivable in the UK.
But that’s the same as if you live similar distances from the mountains in Europe - when I lived in Switzerland I did loads of weekend skiing and even day skiing - I think the whole week long skiing thing is natural if you don’t live writhing say, three hours drive of a ski area whether in the US or Europe.
I'd have no problem with the triple lock being swapped to finance higher defence spending.
In fact, I'd view it as wholly appropriate.
I agree however just 4 minutes ago.
NEW: Cabinet Office Minister Brendan Clarke-Smith tells @JPonpolitics on @TimesRadio pensioners can breathe easily tonight on a their pensions being up-rated inline with with inflation:
"We want to look after our pensioners. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment"
Doesn’t mean they can't be taxed. (Or does it; I've never bothered to understand it)
They could be but they won't. The Tories will never attack what they perceive as their client vote. At least I don't think they will. Hunt may prove me wrong in which case more power to him.
What is daft is that there will be a significant portion of those pensioners and near pensioners who can look beyond their own self interest and realise their benefits come at the expense of their children and grandchildren. I actually think the smack back against any government who got rid of the triple lock or starting taxing pensioners would be no where near as bad as politicians and pundits think. I would love to be proved right on this but I doubt I will get the chance.
As I wrote earlier, Dick, Hunt has a once in a generation opportunity to rid us of the Lock. I think he'll do it, but you may be right so I won't fall off my bathchair if he doesn't.
Indeed. I do desperately want to be wrong about this and see a politician do something because it is the right thing to do for the country rather even though they think it will be politically damaging to them. Hunt, for all the criticism directed at him in the past, might be the person to grasp this rare opportunity.
Who knows, he might even get to like the idea and start taking some more of the electorally damaging but correct decisions for the long term good of the country.
In this discussion Hunt is being assigned agency he does not have. There are not the votes in the Commons to remove the triple lock. Labour will vote against as would at least 50 Tory MPs, probably a lot more.
I am not so sure about that. Of course you may well be right but I think the mood at the moment is such that he could get away with it. Indeed it is worth remembering that when the vote on the Triple lock came before the house last September, Labour did not support retaining it. Instead they abstained. So there is at least some element of realism at work there.
We all know how a budget vote on ending the triple lock will turn out. Labour will decide, after careful consideration, that making poor, vulnerable pensioners with scarcely two pennies to rub together pay the cost of the Kamikwazi budget and multi-million pound bonuses for evil City bankers is abhorrent, and vote against.
All the Tory backbenchers will then be made to leave their fingerprints on the bloody knife. They do it, bye bye grey vote. They refuse, general election. Checkmate, crown Starmer King.
There hasn't been quite enough discussion about what SKS and Labour would actually do when in government about the impossible task facing them - much the same as the impossible task facing Hunt's government. Winning the next GE is the easy bit.
i remember last time labour got in and the tories were wiped out nationalist parties like the bnp and later ukip started to have electoral success. The BNP made big breakthroughs in the 2002 to 2006 period when the Tories were moribund...now we have a much worse economic situation so something like that could well happen again this time on a bigger scale
Tories have to do something when they are unable to stuff their pockets with public cash
The Brexiters worship the US model, but don’t actually want to live there.
🤔
Despite my last post, the US is great, for about 75% of the population.
It's hell if you're poor, and much harsher and more vindictive than this country is.
I would say unless you are in the top 10% by earnings and assets with private healthcare and children and private schools, the US is no better than the rest of the West and for the poorest worse (unless you come from a poor less developed country anyway)
How would you know? I’m my experience, a vast chunk of Americans - especially in places like Denver - live a quality of life simply out of reach to much of Britain.
In return they have to put up with desolate strip malls for entertainment, but that seems to be the trade-off.
When I return from the US, I will miss the mountains and the ocean. Los Angeles itself, not so much.
The new growth across the sunbelt in places like Denver, Austin, Raleigh etc has a far better standard of living than the older metro areas like LA, Chicago, New York. The urban planning is better, the traffic is lower, the roads are tree-lined, the strip malls are actually pleasant places.
No they’re not. And I’m here right now. In downtown Denver
@WillG has a point: suburban Denver - especially Boulder and the areas on the Rockies side - is delightful. It's affordable* (by US standards) with close to zero unemployment, good schools, decent restaurants, and access to some of the best skiing and mountain biking in the world.
On the other hand, it is ugly suburban sprawl, so you can't have everything.
* Well, not Boulder, but much of the rest of Western Denver
I haven't been skiing since 1995 on a school trip. Assumed I would do it again but never got round to it, and now it probably costs a lot more than it did then. I don't think people paid much to go on the school trip.
Skiing in the US is very different up Europe. No one goes on a week long skiing holiday. Instead they get up, chuck the kids in the back of the car, and drive to the ski slope.
In LA, the nearest ski slope are 80-85 minutes away at Mt Baldy, and there's a pretty decent set of slopes at Big Bear. The US's largest ski resort (Mammoth) is a little further, but many people are happy to drive down Saturday morning and back Sunday evening - something that is inconceivable in the UK.
Which doubtless is part of the explanation why in Europe driving at the weekend is generally less busy (except for the two weekends when the whole of Italy goes on holiday) and in the US generally busier. That, and the fact that all the vans and lorries keep going seven days a week.
Until the Tory membership move on from Brexit then they’re going to remain a clear and present danger to the UK and need to be sidelined .
Truss got in because she went into EU hate on steroids , even though she voted Remain she’s turned into the ERGs gimpess!
That's utterly ridiculous and false. The EU have barely featured in the discussions and Truss has done nothing to "hate" the EU, she's merely come up with a sensible method to unilaterally fix the NI Protocol in case an agreement isn't reached - which is the only sensible way to act in negotiations, you need a Plan B in case your negotiations fail and the UK is perfectly entitled to act in a way it sees fit to protect the Good Friday Agreement.
The Truss v Sunak divide had bugger all to do with Europe and was purely an old-fashioned one on the issue of taxation versus sound money. Sunak on the side of increasing taxes, with Truss on the side of cutting them. Brussels was neither here nor there in that.
Truss was both literally and figuratively our first post-Brexit PM and is further proof that Brexit is "done". How people voted for Brexit - Leave or Remain - won't get people to the polls to vote Tory next time as that is all history now.
I see Bart is still in suspended animation, enjoying La La Brexity land fantasies.
I'd agree that Hunt's apparent embrace of Osbornian austerity is a bad thing, and that we should still aim at growth. I'm damned if I can see what "the left" has to do with this.
It was Truss and Kwarteng that blew it. There was no option other than to return to 'Osbornian austerity' as it was necessary to 'calm the markets'.
If you lived in Colorado though, with some of the most beautiful natural scenery in the world, would you really want to work in Denver every day rather than work at home and admire the view? If you want a big city lifestyle you would move to New York or Chicago or LA
But they don’t live up in the sometimes-lovely mountains. They all live in endless identikit suburbs that sprawl around Denver city/downtown. I’ve seen them. Sometimes they come in at night to drink but by day it is a zombie city and - so the guide told me - city businesses that held out during the pandemic hoping things would return are now giving up
A culture that abandons its city centres is in secular decline. It’s what happened to Roman Britain in the 4th century just before Rome quit for good
It’s paradoxical. Americans all say they want a lovable walkable city that is more like Europe. But they don’t do anything to make that happen, they do the opposite. And they insist on driving private cars, which ultimately kills cities
The contrast with happily bustling central Seville a few weeks ago is stark
Yet Denver is many times richer than Seville. Economically, at least.
Denver is vastly richer on paper. And you can feel the money in the nice quality new buildings. The modern stonework. There is very little graffiti. At its best it feels like a more demotic Zurich
Except: zero people. None. I’d much much rather be in beautiful Seville with its happy buzzing atmosphere. This is creepy
Amazingly, the guide told me it is WORSE in the Denver CBD with the skyscrapers
Here’s an office across the road from my hotel. Tuesday at 3pm. Not a soul in there
Though looking at the photos in the round, why would anyone want to spend any more time there than they had to? It looks like slab - wide road - slab. Not much to engage with, or that can make the soul sing. In their different ways, the Square Mile, Docklands and old Seville have got enough density and texture to give the eye lots of somethings to look at.
Has anywhere done that and left enough space for cars to flow and park sufficiently freely?
Except there is also a really nice handsome preserved Victorian downtown bit - steam cleaned bricks and wooden floors, classic preservation stuff - and it is nearly as bad
My guide was a charming old dude and he was in mild despair. It is not a good thing if your cities die. Just isn’t. Working From Home is a fucking disaster for the human soul
Don’t you work from home?
Working from home should be for the elites, not the plebs!
The World has changed - the genie is out. WFH is here to stay,
Complete 100% WFH is as depressing as complete 100% working in the office, though.
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
It is concerning that Truss is being allowed to drift on in a zombie state. However, I think it will carry on this way as the tories obviously cannot agree on what to do about the situation. Assuming the situation settles this way, I'd guess that the next thing would be that she rapidly loses the confidence of her MPs, effectively ending the majority, and a general election in 2023 becomes more likely.
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Canadian Rockies for skiing. Possibly the most beautiful place I've ever been on earth and the most delightful people.
Generally takes a bit more effort to get to than the US Rockies so you don't get so many weekend trippers. It's wild, vast, and sensational.
Good morning
Our eldest son was a professional snowboarder when he was much younger and was celebrity snowboarder at Whistler for a season
He married a Canadian and now lives in Vancouver and regularly travels to the area though his snowboarding days ended 30 years ago
And by the way, is that dreadful and hapless Truss still clinging on to power and when will the conservative mps pull the plug on her
When they have united round someone for a coronation, so that it doesn't have to go to the membership. Which as I'm sure you know, is easier said than done.
As much as I want an immediate GE, it’s simply not going to happen. The Tories are smart enough to play the long game. Starmar is pretty hopeless as the YouGov net favourability ratings show; yes, he may be significantly better than the actors from the filth that is Tory party but the guy has zero political awareness.
Starmer is the best Labour leader since Tony Blair.
That’s almost certainly true, though the competition isn’t that tough.
Remarkably since Blair came to power Labour have had 4 leaders (Brown, Miliband, Corbyn, Starmer) and the Conservatives 7 (Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, and about to embark on an 8th).
Starmer does seem to be someone who improves with time, and shows signs of learning from events. His authority has also slowly but surely grown in the party. Look how he’s mended the relationship with Angela Rayner so the two of them are now quite an effective double act.
Starmer is ok. More of a problem is the quality of the Shadow Cabinet generally.
Fake news. It’s probably the best Labour front bench since late Blair.
Would like to agree, but on what I've heard....Maybe I just happened to listen to the wrong ones.
I used to be a profound Keir skeptic. I also used to be very suspicious of the Labour front bench.
Add Bryant and Benn (potentially) and you have a high-calibre team.
Rayner is not really my cup of tea, but I appreciate she reaches places others don’t.
Starmer’s energy policy should highlight to anyone paying attention that he (and/or his team) have no idea whatsoever what they’re doing. That doesn’t mean he’ll be electorally unsuccessful, at least initially. But it is a clue as to how competent an administration he would likely run.
It's the policy more or less implemented now by the government. I understand you don't like it; plenty of grown-ups think it's the right thing to do.
So what you're saying is that the way to judge whether a policy is sound is by whether this government is implementing it? And if this government is implementing the policy, then that is competent and the grown up thing to do?
Its a view. 🤔
You know very well that's not what I am saying.
I was pointing out in March/April that the Energy price cap was going to need to be frozen. It was the only sensible approach. The Lib Dems and then Labour adopted it way back when your preferred Tory leader was telling us she wasn't going to do it (several u-turns ago).
Typically this government has not yet addressed the funding (which my proposal did) but they are inching closer and I wouldn't be surprised to see both windfall taxes on energy companies and increased taxes on the wealthy being implement in time (as per my proposals).
Your alternative proposal is...?
My alternative I have said before is I would have been a flat grant to households, like Sunak did, but at the appropriate level for the difference the cap would have made at average usage. Or perhaps 80% of it (like Furlough).
This would have meant that energy was still affordable but would have allowed the unit rate of energy to move to whatever rate it is meant to be, keeping the price signal in full to reduce usage. If people do reduce usage, despite having a grant, they would be able to keep that money though.
Most importantly it would be a far more progressive policy that helps the neediest the most. Poorer households with smaller homes use on average much less energy than richer households with bigger homes, but they'd receive the same grant in full. They could if they don't need it all for their energy use any excess grant for food etc. Richer, bigger households who use over the average would need to pay some of their energy themselves or reduce their usage.
Anyone who uses excessively average energy, like heating a private swimming pool, would absolutely not be getting taxpayer funding for that.
An extra grant would be needed for disabled households that use energy for eg medical reasons.
At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
Morning all! Fascinating political times we live in. The simple truth is that whilst it's clear that Truss must be removed, the Tories are incapable of doing so because they cannot coalesce behind *anyone* it would appear.
So there are three realistic scenarios: 1. After another week or so of this they wake up and realise it has to happen. MPs anoint Sunak. 2. After another two weeks of this, Hunt delivers his "oh fuck" statement with the OBR pinning the balem firmly on Truss. Hunt suddenly feels like the least worst option and MPs anoint Hunt 3. After another x weeks of this the government collapses into a fiery pit of plot and counter plot with various groups of mouth-foaming lunatic ?MPs attacking the other. We get a general election because they lose a confidence motion. ELE.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
Morning all! Fascinating political times we live in. The simple truth is that whilst it's clear that Truss must be removed, the Tories are incapable of doing so because they cannot coalesce behind *anyone* it would appear.
So there are three realistic scenarios: 1. After another week or so of this they wake up and realise it has to happen. MPs anoint Sunak. 2. After another two weeks of this, Hunt delivers his "oh fuck" statement with the OBR pinning the balem firmly on Truss. Hunt suddenly feels like the least worst option and MPs anoint Hunt 3. After another x weeks of this the government collapses into a fiery pit of plot and counter plot with various groups of mouth-foaming lunatic ?MPs attacking the other. We get a general election because they lose a confidence motion. ELE.
Except you’re assuming we’re living the wide release version was of the movie, whereas we could be living the director’s cut?
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
Make people elect at age 60: either you forgo any claim to any state pension whatsoever and in exchange we will cap your care costs, or you don't and we won't.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
Stick to your knitting , economics is not for dummies
Mr. Roberts, do you take that view for medical care as well?
No, because care homes and medical care aren't the same thing. Even if there's a connection in dementia.
If someone has eg cancer or cystic fibrosis or whatever and is getting medical treatment but living at home they still need to pay for their own home, their own utility bills, their own food, transportation etc, etc
If someone is in a residential care home, then that is all covered by the care home bills. You don't need your own home if you're never returning to it, your utility bills, food etc are all in the care home fees.
Stopping the home from being sold does nothing whatsoever for the person who used to live in that home. If its to protect an inheritance, well I'm sorry, but the taxpayer should not be on the hook to fund anyone's inheritances.
People who are in a care home for eg two weeks for respite/recovery while discharged from an NHS hospital to free a bed up before returning to their own home, I'd absolutely say should be covered by the NHS.
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
It's bizarre. Pure cakeism, an attempt to evade the point that either you spend the money or your heirs do, not both.
Canadian Rockies for skiing. Possibly the most beautiful place I've ever been on earth and the most delightful people.
Generally takes a bit more effort to get to than the US Rockies so you don't get so many weekend trippers. It's wild, vast, and sensational.
Good morning
Our eldest son was a professional snowboarder when he was much younger and was celebrity snowboarder at Whistler for a season
He married a Canadian and now lives in Vancouver and regularly travels to the area though his snowboarding days ended 30 years ago
And by the way, is that dreadful and hapless Truss still clinging on to power and when will the conservative mps pull the plug on her
How fabulous Big G.
I hope you get out to see them from time to time? I love Canada, and Canadians.
We have but our last trip was cancelled due to covid and at our ages we are unlikely to travel again but they are coming in a Christmas for a family reunion
I am fully in agreement with you both that people should use their savings to look after themselves, rather than for inheritance.
But we do want to avoid a situation where Edmund (77 years old, and in increasingly poor health) is pressured by his children to hand over his assets now, so as to avoid the State stripping them from him to pay for care.
Comments
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
You don't have to be a KC or a CEO to make more than an MP's salary. At a guess 84k is about 95-97th percentile. Or put another way, somewhere about 1 in 30 or 1 in 20. Not unique or particularly special.
While I doubt special advisers make that much, Holden's perfectly capable of getting far more than that in the private sector. And unless something absolutely seismic happens will soon have to!
I'd avoid July and August but the other ten months are all good. I particulatly like Antibles in March and April where you can see the snow on the mountains above the fort and see people swimming in the sea. Some great galleries-Picasso spent the war there- and more cafe and restaurants than you'll find in Soho and Covent Garden put together. £2000 a month sounds good.
Post WW2 economic and demographic boom, along with growth in higher education boosted muchly by GI Bill, lead to great(er) expansion of the economy. In particular manufacturing, creating good jobs and opportunities (including cheap mortgages) for millions of Americans from modest backgrounds including wrong side of the tracks and back in the boondocks.
Children of the Depression and the War. Who became Fathers and Mothers of the Boomers. They did their damdest.
It is there more successful (certainly materially) children and grandchildren who are crowding your high-rent districts and jet-set (21st-century style) fleshpots.
Their sires would be very proud. And bemused.
But these numbers don’t (I think) account for healthcare costs, so let’s compensate for that and say the top 50%
That “smells” about right, speaking as someone who lived in the UK for 20 years and now lives in the US.
America is vast though.
Clearly there are significant differences between Denver, Baltimore, and New York.
https://www.ft.com/content/ef265420-45e8-497b-b308-c951baa68945
The best thing about New York is getting out of New York.
Denver fails on both counts.
May I suggest you visit the Redneck Riviera someday for bit of a change? Plenty of good grub if you look for it. Though best avoided during Spring Break!
On that note, just want you to know that I'd like to pitch you on helping to produce, as a play, movie, whatever you think best) my longstanding, personal creative dream:
"Twelve Angry Muppets"
He'd be perfect!
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
However, upon mature reflection, an not sure Lumet shares (or rather shared) my vision for this project; doubtful he could capture the dramatic, emotional tension between a motley assemblage of diverse hand-puppets versus one lone frog unafraid to croak for justice - and keep on croaking!
1. Ever-changing electorate, massive population growth almost all the time means it's different electorate virtually every cycle
2. Two-thirds of NV vote is Clark County (Las Vegas), bit less than 20% from Washoe County (Reno) and about 15% from the vast and majestic expanse of in-between-ness that is the Cow Counties.
3. Clark is Democratic, but with significant Republican minority and plenty of swing voters so margins matter; Washoe less Democratic but otherwise similar; and Cow Counties are overwelmingly GOP.
4. Nevada is land of American Dream-seakers, 2nd-chancers and above all young(ish) working families, from every part of the USA and the world, including lots of Latinos and folks formerly called Mormons.
5. In recent decades, Nevada especially hit by recession, lending crisis, COVID, you name it, hence hard-pressed Nevadans (see #4) are HIGHLY sensitive to economic issues in particular cost of living, especially (in this far-flung state) gasoline prices. Thus other issues, notably abortion, are important but perhaps less so that cost of living.
6. Trump embraced by most NV GOP, though endured by others. On other hand, Democrats have been badly split between progressive challengers versus establishment moderates. Plus overreach by some in both camps resulted in redistricting that could cost Dems several US House seats quite unnecessarily.
6. Harry Reed is no more, and you can say that again. And again.
Labour’s progressive dream has died along with the Tories’ libertarian one
If he is elected UK premier, Keir Starmer won’t have the money to do very much
JANAN GANESH"
https://www.ft.com/content/063fce40-3f45-46ab-bfbf-6158d082ed0c
Does anyone remember Unsinkable Molly Brown?
Debbie Reynolds in the "The Unsinkable Molly Brown" the Uncrowned Queen of Denver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEHko2DkPvI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Brown
Labour will come to regret siding with the markets and the technocrats
Thomas Fazi"
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-left-has-just-ushered-in-an-age-of-austerity/
John Denver - Rocky Mountain High
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOS5-n7dyj4
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/18/truss-left-has-launched-fightback-among-brexit-faithful/ (£££)
Previously, Lynton Crosby-associate David Canzini had worked for Boris and been let go by LizT. Now he is back on the books, for good or ill.
Frustration with the Prime Minister continues to grow among Conservative backbenchers"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/18/rebel-tories-ask-labour-mps-help-oust-liz-truss/
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dozens-lng-laden-ships-queue-off-europes-coasts-unable-unload-2022-10-17/
On the other hand, it is ugly suburban sprawl, so you can't have everything.
* Well, not Boulder, but much of the rest of Western Denver
So a strong performance - in one Borough, in one year - but nowhere near control.
(It should also be noted that in 2010, the BNP lost every single one of the seats they were defending.)
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe still has full gas storage facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/
Think of it as a wealth tax, collected by the private sector and allocated semi-randomly.
If lower taxes lead to people having to spend on health, education and other services, then neither they nor the economy are any better off.
Where Have All the Men in Moscow Gone? https://nyti.ms/3MGSs1Y
Having spent years conflating current spending with investment, and also creating badly managed PFI programmes, he had given government investment spending a bad name. (And possibly reduced the ability of the civil service properly to plan projects, though that's just speculation on my part.)
In LA, the nearest ski slope are 80-85 minutes away at Mt Baldy, and there's a pretty decent set of slopes at Big Bear. The US's largest ski resort (Mammoth) is a little further, but many people are happy to drive down Saturday morning and back Sunday evening - something that is inconceivable in the UK.
https://twitter.com/scotnational/status/1582400361020772355
If so, the surprising thing would be that he's got so far in the party, not that he'd never be elected leader by the members.
Generally takes a bit more effort to get to than the US Rockies so you don't get so many weekend trippers. It's wild, vast, and sensational.
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1582045663830736900?t=F2YG46_KJXasb97nw31L2A&s=19
And on the potential for a Belarussian invasion:
https://twitter.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1581004764417884161?t=XCtjkU5HyqHyTlEtQI5Xnw&s=19
Our eldest son was a professional snowboarder when he was much younger and was celebrity snowboarder at Whistler for a season
He married a Canadian and now lives in Vancouver and regularly travels to the area though his snowboarding days ended 30 years ago
And by the way, is that dreadful and hapless Truss still clinging on to power and when will the conservative mps pull the plug on her
What happened to the picture of Gove showing how to bowl a googly?
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
This would have meant that energy was still affordable but would have allowed the unit rate of energy to move to whatever rate it is meant to be, keeping the price signal in full to reduce usage. If people do reduce usage, despite having a grant, they would be able to keep that money though.
Most importantly it would be a far more progressive policy that helps the neediest the most. Poorer households with smaller homes use on average much less energy than richer households with bigger homes, but they'd receive the same grant in full. They could if they don't need it all for their energy use any excess grant for food etc. Richer, bigger households who use over the average would need to pay some of their energy themselves or reduce their usage.
Anyone who uses excessively average energy, like heating a private swimming pool, would absolutely not be getting taxpayer funding for that.
An extra grant would be needed for disabled households that use energy for eg medical reasons.
I hope you get out to see them from time to time? I love Canada, and Canadians.
The taxpayer shouldn't be charged to protect anyone's inheritance.
If you have anything leftover for people to inherit then that should be a bonus, not a way of life.
Mr. Roberts, do you take that view for medical care as well?
So there are three realistic scenarios:
1. After another week or so of this they wake up and realise it has to happen. MPs anoint Sunak.
2. After another two weeks of this, Hunt delivers his "oh fuck" statement with the OBR pinning the balem firmly on Truss. Hunt suddenly feels like the least worst option and MPs anoint Hunt
3. After another x weeks of this the government collapses into a fiery pit of plot and counter plot with various groups of mouth-foaming lunatic ?MPs attacking the other. We get a general election because they lose a confidence motion. ELE.
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1582615461069754369
https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1582615512034451458/photo/1
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-economy-latest-news-inflation-mortgage-rates-12615118 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1582616191004467200/photo/1
If someone has eg cancer or cystic fibrosis or whatever and is getting medical treatment but living at home they still need to pay for their own home, their own utility bills, their own food, transportation etc, etc
If someone is in a residential care home, then that is all covered by the care home bills. You don't need your own home if you're never returning to it, your utility bills, food etc are all in the care home fees.
Stopping the home from being sold does nothing whatsoever for the person who used to live in that home. If its to protect an inheritance, well I'm sorry, but the taxpayer should not be on the hook to fund anyone's inheritances.
People who are in a care home for eg two weeks for respite/recovery while discharged from an NHS hospital to free a bed up before returning to their own home, I'd absolutely say should be covered by the NHS.
Latest: https://bit.ly/3gmm5db https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1582621064932171782/photo/1
I am fully in agreement with you both that people should use their savings to look after themselves, rather than for inheritance.
But we do want to avoid a situation where Edmund (77 years old, and in increasingly poor health) is pressured by his children to hand over his assets now, so as to avoid the State stripping them from him to pay for care.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1582619426490155013