First ConHome rankings on the Sunak cabinet. Kemi Badenoch is second, only to Ben Wallace while Suella Braverman - the supposed ‘darling of the right’ - is much less popular than some of the commentary would suggest.
I think this survey doesn’t have much thought to it, so please don’t take it seriously - 3 parts what ministry you are in charge of to 2 parts fair/unfair media perception.
Say you are in a difficult ministry, you are going down in history books as done a fine job there during your stint, this survey will mark you way down. Ditto some marked way up for no good reason at all, might well go down in history books as had an awful stint in their ministry.
Just a bit of fun... but it's been quite some time nevertheless since the PM has sat towards the top of the table?
Have we really had a whole night arguing about whether or not London is in the South East?
I'm sure we can beat that in the coming months.
We should really all contrive to find a topic that hyufd has posted completely accurately on and all argue with him in a completely irrational, incoherent and illogical way. We should misquote some stats and wikipedia pages and see what happens. Could be fun.
Can I have another go at the argument about whether birds are animals?
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Many places including Switzerland, Monaco and the US
On no. That old cliché. Tories always roll that one out as the end draws in.
Reality though
Reality is that Monaco is boring as shit. Unless you like spending your time with a bunch of boring rich people who are too tight fisted to live somewhere interesting I guess? Switzerland is great if you like mountains.
The US is much the same: if you want to live an a Houston exurb & spend all your time on the road then sure, go for it. Otherwise you’re going to get taxed (and the healthcare costs might eat you alive unless you’re genuinely in the “too rich to care about such things” bracket - the merely wealthy get fleeced by the healthcare system just as much as everyone else does).
Monaco is not “boring as shit”
It’s a highly privileged small city surrounded by some of the most desirable real estate on earth - the south of France
You’ve got world class sailing, hiking, skiiing, and multiple other sports on your doorstep. You’ve got Provençal food, wine and climate. You’ve got zero taxes. You’ve got a string of famous art galleries, chateaux, museums, along the riviera. You’ve got Nice and Marseilles if you want urban grit in the sun
You’ve also got the Pyrenees and the Alps, and london and Paris are about an hour away
It’s a pretty good option for a billionaire
I note that you have to leave Monaco to get access to most of these wonderful things.
Yes. You have to “get in a car and drive for a bit”. Or you can take the train which goes straight through Monaco
Have we really had a whole night arguing about whether or not London is in the South East?
I'm sure we can beat that in the coming months.
We should really all contrive to find a topic that hyufd has posted completely accurately on and all argue with him in a completely irrational, incoherent and illogical way. We should misquote some stats and wikipedia pages and see what happens. Could be fun.
Can I have another go at the argument about whether birds are animals?
No definitely not. Made me laugh. Most people reading that though won't have a clue why.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
Something that would give the government a huge incentive, to do precisely nothing about housing affordability. They’d be celebrating house price rises, even more than they do already for the stamp duty revenue.
An interesting one. NW Leics is fairly classic Red Wall. A former coalfield, but with lots of new housing and now an economy of warehouses and Amazon. It used to be a marginal, but over the last decade swung heavily blue. A tough test for Labour.
Have we really had a whole night arguing about whether or not London is in the South East?
I'm sure we can beat that in the coming months.
We should really all contrive to find a topic that hyufd has posted completely accurately on and all argue with him in a completely irrational, incoherent and illogical way. We should misquote some stats and wikipedia pages and see what happens. Could be fun.
Can I have another go at the argument about whether birds are animals?
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Kari Lake for ‘28. Remember: you read it here first
Not sure her closing message of repeal Obamacare was the right move . I thought you didn’t like election deniers ?
PB should not be incapable of distinguishing between predictions and opinions
I noticed earlier than anyone on here that she has raw political talent. I also called her, from the start, extremely scary. She is an articulate and attractive Trump. That is a menacing proposition
It will certainly be pass the popcorn if she doesn’t win in Arizona . I think her comments on Obamacare will hurt her in the run in . The GOP as a whole have decided to not bring up Obamacare during the mid-terms as it’s overall a vote loser for them .
What? She’s come from far behind in Arizona
Looks tight now
She won the primary in August and then of course the GOP vote coalesced around her . Her opponent Hobbs decided to not debate her which I think was a mistake even though Lake is a good performer given her media background .
Football: Arsenal should beat Zurich comfortably this evening, and they probably will, but will know that a draw is unlikely to be enough to ensure that they top the group - they would probably come second on goal difference.
So there will be some nerves.
I've had a small bet on a 0-0 on First Goalscorer market with BF No Goalscorer @ 46. Odds now gone. To top up I can get 38 with BF on a 0-0 draw, but I think this might edge out a touch so am waiting.
Kari Lake for ‘28. Remember: you read it here first
Not sure her closing message of repeal Obamacare was the right move . I thought you didn’t like election deniers ?
PB should not be incapable of distinguishing between predictions and opinions
I noticed earlier than anyone on here that she has raw political talent. I also called her, from the start, extremely scary. She is an articulate and attractive Trump. That is a menacing proposition
if Trump gets in this time, he'll try to install a family dynasty; if not, then the likes of Lake might well be yesterday's news by 2028, which would be good for all concerned.
Alternatively, she gets to mud wrestle Tulsi Gabbard for the VP slot in 2024.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
I do not have a problem with higher taxes for the rich and indeed the council tax banding is a disgrace and lacks more higher bands
My only concern is that is is proportionate and that we do not discourage entrepreneurs and high flyers that we need not least to assist growth
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Yeah but, though they might lose Phil's vote the Lib Dems are going to win so many SE seats if they propose MIRAS. Obviously if Labour are shy, they'll drop it as part of "difficult" negotiations with Starmer.
Have we really had a whole night arguing about whether or not London is in the South East?
I'm sure we can beat that in the coming months.
We should really all contrive to find a topic that hyufd has posted completely accurately on and all argue with him in a completely irrational, incoherent and illogical way. We should misquote some stats and wikipedia pages and see what happens. Could be fun.
And then the night after, take one of Leondamus's ludicrous conspiracy theories seriously, I suppose?
Today’s YouGov just released by The Times … Labour 26 points ahead, Starmer leads Sunak on best PM by 4.
Do you have the party figures?
Labour 50 Tories 24 LDs 9 Greens 6 SNP 5
That’s an increase in Tory share (and decrease for Labour) share since last Yougov. This poll taken still very much in Sunak’s Honeymoon period as records rise in Tory support as all other firms recording rise in their support. We still need 6 weeks 2/3 polls at least from each firm to have a handle on trend. But a honeymoon bounce there certainly is for Tories since Sunak became PM.
Although my suspicions are this is a bad poll for Conservatives as it’s in the lower end of 25-28 herding, it’s too early for firm opinions.
Ukraine might have an effective and affordable anti-drone system... by the middle of next year.
USA🇺🇸 will deliver the VAMPIRE Anti-Drone System to Ukraine🇺🇦 around May 2023 say US Officials
VAMPIRE C-UAS is a low cost effective solution for dealing with enemy drones, it works by firing laser guided rockets like APKWS with a range of several kilometers and speed of +2 Mach https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/status/1587806243145613315
To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?
Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.
Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”
Would it be unduly expensive to use tankers as storage and pay to keep a few moored in Milford Haven through the winter?
It’s a good question. The answer as you sugggest, with these tankers worth their weight in gold right now, it could be too expensive to moor one down like that.
I think the issue is that if they are moored then they are not off getting your next load so you are just creating a bigger problem down the line
Basically - once again - the government (along with most other people) forgot that one of their primary roles is structural resilience
LNG vessels are not great looking term stores of natural gas, because - while they are well insulated - they have no way to actually cool the gas. An LNG vessel will therefore see its gas warming and expanding and ultimately returning to a gaseous state.
LNG Returning to a gaseous state would be cool to watch though…
Depends how quickly it does it
I've forgotten my O level physics. As the temperature rises to the LNG boiling point, presumably the ship would just burst under the pressure of boiled off gas?
I assume there are safety valves that would release first?
Only if the tank can hold the considerably increased pressure, or the safety vents can release the evolved gas quickly enough to keep the buildup of pressure down.
One point however is that evaporation of gas will itself cool the liquid somewhat.
If the pressure does build up there will be considerable energy stored in the compressed gas - which will sooner or later cause an explosion in its own right, quite apart from the effect of suddenly creating a mixed gas of methane and air, and enough debris and macerated electrical stuff to cause a spark.
Such explosions were a big thing in the C19 with railway locos and dodgy factory boilers running steam for engines.
The former effect is much feared sufficiently to be known I believe as a BLEVE
Here the heat is coming from ane xternal fire - but of course there is no fire inside the tank and you can see that the explosion precedes the ignition of the internal fuel.
As part of our fire training for working offshore we are usually shown the effects of a BLEVE explosion using one of those small camping gas cylinders that everyone seems to keep under their stairs. The ones about the size of a large tea mug. The take away? Don't store them under your stairs or anywhere in your house.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Many places including Switzerland, Monaco and the US
On no. That old cliché. Tories always roll that one out as the end draws in.
Reality though
Reality is that Monaco is boring as shit. Unless you like spending your time with a bunch of boring rich people who are too tight fisted to live somewhere interesting I guess? Switzerland is great if you like mountains.
The US is much the same: if you want to live an a Houston exurb & spend all your time on the road then sure, go for it. Otherwise you’re going to get taxed (and the healthcare costs might eat you alive unless you’re genuinely in the “too rich to care about such things” bracket - the merely wealthy get fleeced by the healthcare system just as much as everyone else does).
Monaco is not “boring as shit”
It’s a highly privileged small city surrounded by some of the most desirable real estate on earth - the south of France
You’ve got world class sailing, hiking, skiiing, and multiple other sports on your doorstep. You’ve got Provençal food, wine and climate. You’ve got zero taxes. You’ve got a string of famous art galleries, chateaux, museums, along the riviera. You’ve got Nice and Marseilles if you want urban grit in the sun
You’ve also got the Pyrenees and the Alps, and london and Paris are about an hour away
It’s a pretty good option for a billionaire
I note that you have to leave Monaco to get access to most of these wonderful things.
Yes. You have to “get in a car and drive for a bit”. Or you can take the train which goes straight through Monaco
Nightmare. Like a prison
So Monaco itself is as boring as shit, but you can easily get to some other places that aren't as boring as shit.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
I do not have a problem with higher taxes for the rich and indeed the council tax banding is a disgrace and lacks more higher bands
My only concern is that is is proportionate and that we do not discourage entrepreneurs and high flyers that we need not least to assist growth
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Many places including Switzerland, Monaco and the US
On no. That old cliché. Tories always roll that one out as the end draws in.
Reality though
Reality is that Monaco is boring as shit. Unless you like spending your time with a bunch of boring rich people who are too tight fisted to live somewhere interesting I guess? Switzerland is great if you like mountains.
The US is much the same: if you want to live an a Houston exurb & spend all your time on the road then sure, go for it. Otherwise you’re going to get taxed (and the healthcare costs might eat you alive unless you’re genuinely in the “too rich to care about such things” bracket - the merely wealthy get fleeced by the healthcare system just as much as everyone else does).
Monaco is not “boring as shit”
It’s a highly privileged small city surrounded by some of the most desirable real estate on earth - the south of France
You’ve got world class sailing, hiking, skiiing, and multiple other sports on your doorstep. You’ve got Provençal food, wine and climate. You’ve got zero taxes. You’ve got a string of famous art galleries, chateaux, museums, along the riviera. You’ve got Nice and Marseilles if you want urban grit in the sun
You’ve also got the Pyrenees and the Alps, and london and Paris are about an hour away
It’s a pretty good option for a billionaire
I note that you have to leave Monaco to get access to most of these wonderful things.
Yes. You have to “get in a car and drive for a bit”. Or you can take the train which goes straight through Monaco
Nightmare. Like a prison
So Monaco itself is as boring as shit, but you can easily get to some other places that aren't as boring as shit.
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Yeah but, though they might lose Phil's vote the Lib Dems are going to win so many SE seats if they propose MIRAS. Obviously if Labour are shy, they'll drop it as part of "difficult" negotiations with Starmer.
Proper blue wall electioneering.
MIRAS would help me a lot personally, yet it feels wrong to help out homeowners in such a way when there's millions of people not on the housing ladder. Remove basic rate relief for landlords so that first time buyers aren't having to compete with a different cost structure.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Many places including Switzerland, Monaco and the US
On no. That old cliché. Tories always roll that one out as the end draws in.
Reality though
Reality is that Monaco is boring as shit. Unless you like spending your time with a bunch of boring rich people who are too tight fisted to live somewhere interesting I guess? Switzerland is great if you like mountains.
The US is much the same: if you want to live an a Houston exurb & spend all your time on the road then sure, go for it. Otherwise you’re going to get taxed (and the healthcare costs might eat you alive unless you’re genuinely in the “too rich to care about such things” bracket - the merely wealthy get fleeced by the healthcare system just as much as everyone else does).
Monaco is not “boring as shit”
It’s a highly privileged small city surrounded by some of the most desirable real estate on earth - the south of France
You’ve got world class sailing, hiking, skiiing, and multiple other sports on your doorstep. You’ve got Provençal food, wine and climate. You’ve got zero taxes. You’ve got a string of famous art galleries, chateaux, museums, along the riviera. You’ve got Nice and Marseilles if you want urban grit in the sun
You’ve also got the Pyrenees and the Alps, and london and Paris are about an hour away
It’s a pretty good option for a billionaire
I note that you have to leave Monaco to get access to most of these wonderful things.
Yes. You have to “get in a car and drive for a bit”. Or you can take the train which goes straight through Monaco
Nightmare. Like a prison
So Monaco itself is as boring as shit, but you can easily get to some other places that aren't as boring as shit.
Like Swindon?
Like Swindon, but with yacht parking and no income tax.
Kari Lake for ‘28. Remember: you read it here first
Not sure her closing message of repeal Obamacare was the right move . I thought you didn’t like election deniers ?
PB should not be incapable of distinguishing between predictions and opinions
I noticed earlier than anyone on here that she has raw political talent. I also called her, from the start, extremely scary. She is an articulate and attractive Trump. That is a menacing proposition
It will certainly be pass the popcorn if she doesn’t win in Arizona . I think her comments on Obamacare will hurt her in the run in . The GOP as a whole have decided to not bring up Obamacare during the mid-terms as it’s overall a vote loser for them .
What? She’s come from far behind in Arizona
Looks tight now
She won the primary in August and then of course the GOP vote coalesced around her . Her opponent Hobbs decided to not debate her which I think was a mistake even though Lake is a good performer given her media background .
Hobbs seems to be a terrible candidate. Avoiding debate is fine if you’re 29 points ahead. She was not
To re-state a question I asked earlier why have UK gas prices spiked again?
Probably because there's very little storage, and an LNG cargo has been diverted to Rotterdam.
Really? Something like that and they spike? No sort of clever market people with 9 screens and coffee addiction peering into the future and getting a sense of something they don’t like? Just one walky-talks conversation “Sorry Biffur, all full, try Rotterdam.”
Would it be unduly expensive to use tankers as storage and pay to keep a few moored in Milford Haven through the winter?
It’s a good question. The answer as you sugggest, with these tankers worth their weight in gold right now, it could be too expensive to moor one down like that.
I think the issue is that if they are moored then they are not off getting your next load so you are just creating a bigger problem down the line
Basically - once again - the government (along with most other people) forgot that one of their primary roles is structural resilience
LNG vessels are not great looking term stores of natural gas, because - while they are well insulated - they have no way to actually cool the gas. An LNG vessel will therefore see its gas warming and expanding and ultimately returning to a gaseous state.
LNG Returning to a gaseous state would be cool to watch though…
Depends how quickly it does it
I've forgotten my O level physics. As the temperature rises to the LNG boiling point, presumably the ship would just burst under the pressure of boiled off gas?
I assume there are safety valves that would release first?
Only if the tank can hold the considerably increased pressure, or the safety vents can release the evolved gas quickly enough to keep the buildup of pressure down.
One point however is that evaporation of gas will itself cool the liquid somewhat.
If the pressure does build up there will be considerable energy stored in the compressed gas - which will sooner or later cause an explosion in its own right, quite apart from the effect of suddenly creating a mixed gas of methane and air, and enough debris and macerated electrical stuff to cause a spark.
Such explosions were a big thing in the C19 with railway locos and dodgy factory boilers running steam for engines.
The former effect is much feared sufficiently to be known I believe as a BLEVE
Here the heat is coming from ane xternal fire - but of course there is no fire inside the tank and you can see that the explosion precedes the ignition of the internal fuel.
As part of our fire training for working offshore we are usually shown the effects of a BLEVE explosion using one of those small camping gas cylinders that everyone seems to keep under their stairs. The ones about the size of a large tea mug. The take away? Don't store them under your stairs or anywhere in your house.
In the (relatively unlikely) event of an LNG carrier cooking off like that, the effects would be in the order of a small tactical nuke.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
I do not have a problem with higher taxes for the rich and indeed the council tax banding is a disgrace and lacks more higher bands
My only concern is that is is proportionate and that we do not discourage entrepreneurs and high flyers that we need not least to assist growth
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Yeah but, though they might lose Phil's vote the Lib Dems are going to win so many SE seats if they propose MIRAS. Obviously if Labour are shy, they'll drop it as part of "difficult" negotiations with Starmer.
Proper blue wall electioneering.
MIRAS would help me a lot personally, yet it feels wrong to help out homeowners in such a way when there's millions of people not on the housing ladder. Remove basic rate relief for landlords so that first time buyers aren't having to compete with a different cost structure.
I'd have thought a capped MIRAS might be the electoral sweet spot. OO first homes only; £200k of outstanding loanequity max; basic relief.
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
The Government is morally and electorally obliged to step in when the problem is being caused by Government policy. Government imposed lockdowns threatened job losses, so doing something to stop that happening was a Government responsibility. The same can be said of energy price rises caused in the immediate term by Government action on Russia, and in the long term by pursuing a wrong headed and dangerous energy policy. None of that is the fault of those asking for 'a handout'.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Many places including Switzerland, Monaco and the US
On no. That old cliché. Tories always roll that one out as the end draws in.
Reality though
Reality is that Monaco is boring as shit. Unless you like spending your time with a bunch of boring rich people who are too tight fisted to live somewhere interesting I guess? Switzerland is great if you like mountains.
The US is much the same: if you want to live an a Houston exurb & spend all your time on the road then sure, go for it. Otherwise you’re going to get taxed (and the healthcare costs might eat you alive unless you’re genuinely in the “too rich to care about such things” bracket - the merely wealthy get fleeced by the healthcare system just as much as everyone else does).
Monaco is not “boring as shit”
It’s a highly privileged small city surrounded by some of the most desirable real estate on earth - the south of France
You’ve got world class sailing, hiking, skiiing, and multiple other sports on your doorstep. You’ve got Provençal food, wine and climate. You’ve got zero taxes. You’ve got a string of famous art galleries, chateaux, museums, along the riviera. You’ve got Nice and Marseilles if you want urban grit in the sun
You’ve also got the Pyrenees and the Alps, and london and Paris are about an hour away
It’s a pretty good option for a billionaire
I note that you have to leave Monaco to get access to most of these wonderful things.
Yes. You have to “get in a car and drive for a bit”. Or you can take the train which goes straight through Monaco
Nightmare. Like a prison
So Monaco itself is as boring as shit, but you can easily get to some other places that aren't as boring as shit.
Like Swindon?
Like Swindon, but with yacht parking and no income tax.
Also, not really like Swindon. It’s Monte Carlo. It’s beautiful and fun but expensive
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Many places including Switzerland, Monaco and the US
On no. That old cliché. Tories always roll that one out as the end draws in.
Reality though
Reality is that Monaco is boring as shit. Unless you like spending your time with a bunch of boring rich people who are too tight fisted to live somewhere interesting I guess? Switzerland is great if you like mountains.
The US is much the same: if you want to live an a Houston exurb & spend all your time on the road then sure, go for it. Otherwise you’re going to get taxed (and the healthcare costs might eat you alive unless you’re genuinely in the “too rich to care about such things” bracket - the merely wealthy get fleeced by the healthcare system just as much as everyone else does).
Monaco is not “boring as shit”
It’s a highly privileged small city surrounded by some of the most desirable real estate on earth - the south of France
You’ve got world class sailing, hiking, skiiing, and multiple other sports on your doorstep. You’ve got Provençal food, wine and climate. You’ve got zero taxes. You’ve got a string of famous art galleries, chateaux, museums, along the riviera. You’ve got Nice and Marseilles if you want urban grit in the sun
You’ve also got the Pyrenees and the Alps, and london and Paris are about an hour away
It’s a pretty good option for a billionaire
I note that you have to leave Monaco to get access to most of these wonderful things.
Yes. You have to “get in a car and drive for a bit”. Or you can take the train which goes straight through Monaco
Nightmare. Like a prison
So Monaco itself is as boring as shit, but you can easily get to some other places that aren't as boring as shit.
Like Swindon?
Like Swindon, but with yacht parking and no income tax.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
I do not have a problem with higher taxes for the rich and indeed the council tax banding is a disgrace and lacks more higher bands
My only concern is that is is proportionate and that we do not discourage entrepreneurs and high flyers that we need not least to assist growth
Kari Lake for ‘28. Remember: you read it here first
Not sure her closing message of repeal Obamacare was the right move . I thought you didn’t like election deniers ?
PB should not be incapable of distinguishing between predictions and opinions
I noticed earlier than anyone on here that she has raw political talent. I also called her, from the start, extremely scary. She is an articulate and attractive Trump. That is a menacing proposition
It will certainly be pass the popcorn if she doesn’t win in Arizona . I think her comments on Obamacare will hurt her in the run in . The GOP as a whole have decided to not bring up Obamacare during the mid-terms as it’s overall a vote loser for them .
What? She’s come from far behind in Arizona
Looks tight now
She won the primary in August and then of course the GOP vote coalesced around her . Her opponent Hobbs decided to not debate her which I think was a mistake even though Lake is a good performer given her media background .
Hobbs seems to be a terrible candidate. Avoiding debate is fine if you’re 29 points ahead. She was not
These mid-terms do appear to be characterised by the actual candidates more than usual. Mid-terms are usually seen as a referendum on the President, but there’s plenty of polling evidence that the results are unlikely to show the usual national swing, rather there will be a lot of unusual results, with voters going for or against specific candidates rather than party labels.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Many places including Switzerland, Monaco and the US
On no. That old cliché. Tories always roll that one out as the end draws in.
Reality though
Reality is that Monaco is boring as shit. Unless you like spending your time with a bunch of boring rich people who are too tight fisted to live somewhere interesting I guess? Switzerland is great if you like mountains.
The US is much the same: if you want to live an a Houston exurb & spend all your time on the road then sure, go for it. Otherwise you’re going to get taxed (and the healthcare costs might eat you alive unless you’re genuinely in the “too rich to care about such things” bracket - the merely wealthy get fleeced by the healthcare system just as much as everyone else does).
Monaco is not “boring as shit”
It’s a highly privileged small city surrounded by some of the most desirable real estate on earth - the south of France
You’ve got world class sailing, hiking, skiiing, and multiple other sports on your doorstep. You’ve got Provençal food, wine and climate. You’ve got zero taxes. You’ve got a string of famous art galleries, chateaux, museums, along the riviera. You’ve got Nice and Marseilles if you want urban grit in the sun
You’ve also got the Pyrenees and the Alps, and london and Paris are about an hour away
It’s a pretty good option for a billionaire
I note that you have to leave Monaco to get access to most of these wonderful things.
Yes. You have to “get in a car and drive for a bit”. Or you can take the train which goes straight through Monaco
Nightmare. Like a prison
So Monaco itself is as boring as shit, but you can easily get to some other places that aren't as boring as shit.
Like Swindon?
Like Swindon, but with yacht parking and no income tax.
First ConHome rankings on the Sunak cabinet. Kemi Badenoch is second, only to Ben Wallace while Suella Braverman - the supposed ‘darling of the right’ - is much less popular than some of the commentary would suggest.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
I do not have a problem with higher taxes for the rich and indeed the council tax banding is a disgrace and lacks more higher bands
My only concern is that is is proportionate and that we do not discourage entrepreneurs and high flyers that we need not least to assist growth
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Yeah but, though they might lose Phil's vote the Lib Dems are going to win so many SE seats if they propose MIRAS. Obviously if Labour are shy, they'll drop it as part of "difficult" negotiations with Starmer.
Proper blue wall electioneering.
MIRAS would help me a lot personally, yet it feels wrong to help out homeowners in such a way when there's millions of people not on the housing ladder. Remove basic rate relief for landlords so that first time buyers aren't having to compete with a different cost structure.
Relief for landlords absolutely is a perversion that needs to be removed. Should be a surcharge, not a relief, for them.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Many places including Switzerland, Monaco and the US
On no. That old cliché. Tories always roll that one out as the end draws in.
Reality though
Reality is that Monaco is boring as shit. Unless you like spending your time with a bunch of boring rich people who are too tight fisted to live somewhere interesting I guess? Switzerland is great if you like mountains.
The US is much the same: if you want to live an a Houston exurb & spend all your time on the road then sure, go for it. Otherwise you’re going to get taxed (and the healthcare costs might eat you alive unless you’re genuinely in the “too rich to care about such things” bracket - the merely wealthy get fleeced by the healthcare system just as much as everyone else does).
Monaco is not “boring as shit”
It’s a highly privileged small city surrounded by some of the most desirable real estate on earth - the south of France
You’ve got world class sailing, hiking, skiiing, and multiple other sports on your doorstep. You’ve got Provençal food, wine and climate. You’ve got zero taxes. You’ve got a string of famous art galleries, chateaux, museums, along the riviera. You’ve got Nice and Marseilles if you want urban grit in the sun
You’ve also got the Pyrenees and the Alps, and london and Paris are about an hour away
It’s a pretty good option for a billionaire
I note that you have to leave Monaco to get access to most of these wonderful things.
Yes. You have to “get in a car and drive for a bit”. Or you can take the train which goes straight through Monaco
Nightmare. Like a prison
So Monaco itself is as boring as shit, but you can easily get to some other places that aren't as boring as shit.
Like Swindon?
Like Swindon, but with yacht parking and no income tax.
Also, not really like Swindon. It’s Monte Carlo. It’s beautiful and fun but expensive
It's a very nicely situated small town, and it's safe, much more so than nearby France. You can wear your geegaws and not get mugged. I am not sure even it's longest serving and most affectionate residents would call it fun. I don't think fun is really the attraction.
First ConHome rankings on the Sunak cabinet. Kemi Badenoch is second, only to Ben Wallace while Suella Braverman - the supposed ‘darling of the right’ - is much less popular than some of the commentary would suggest.
The Telegraph reports that the Home Office is attempting to block book the entire 4 star Novotel in Ipswich for dinghy people. For months, is the implication
The optics of this for HMG are implausibly bad. I imagine a large chunk of financially hard pressed Brits would love to spend the winter in a 4 star Novotel. With everything provided - from food to heating
Yet Albanians come first? AND YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM
This story is a political Chernobyl
If you have a solution please share it.
Put them on planes, fly them back. Don't even bother with a process, Albania is a safe country.
I agree, but if you don't bother with a process then hordes of left-wing lawyers will appeal it to death.
Law needs to be changed first.
We can’t go as far as Max suggests but there is no reason why the HO determination could not be done in a week and any appeal disposed of within a month if the HO just got their finger out.
The main claim in relation to Albania is blood feuds but an internal relocation will be possible in the vast majority of cases.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
Something that would give the government a huge incentive, to do precisely nothing about housing affordability. They’d be celebrating house price rises, even more than they do already for the stamp duty revenue.
But it'd give homeowners an incentive not to see ridiculous house price increases, since they'd be paying more in tax up front every time prices went up - and getting a tax cut any time prices went down.
Anyone who was NIMBY to inflate their own asset prices would have to pay an externality tax essentially caused directly by their own actions. Anyone who was YIMBY and saw decent construction in their area approved would be getting lower taxes while the new homes would pay property tax instead of it all being levied on them.
When it comes to county towns, you should also remember they weren't actually fixed in stone until the 1970s. So, to take the most obvious example, Hampshire was originally based in Southampton but the administration moved to the more convenient centre of Winchester. In Wiltshire, it moved from Wilton in the south to Devizes in the middle. This was because the official definition of a shire was one day's ride from the chosen burh. So obviously they had to be as central as possible.
In some of the other cases you mention, the county towns were capitals of ancient kingdoms. E.g. Yorkshire is the amended form of the Kingdom of Jorvik. In fact, much of the administration was run through the Ridings, which were based at Northallerton, Wakefield and Beverley. Similarly the ancient county town of Sussex would be Horsham as the South Saxons' capital, but in the real world it's always been divided into East and West Sussex based at Lewes and Chichester.
After the Norman conquest when counties were reorganised the general rule was the administration was based at wherever there was a royal castle to function as the headquarters and hold the courts. This is, for example, how Taunton became the county town of Somerset and why in 1286 two of the five new counties of Wales were based in Cardigan and Harlech rather than the logical centres of Lampeter and Bala.
It wasn't until 1889 that county councils were formed, and many of them met in various places for many years until permanent headquarters were built. Even then, the other major function of a county, the assize courts, often continued to meet elsewhere. In Westmoreland the county council met in Kendal but the assizes continued to be held in Appleby. In Wiltshire the county council was based in Trowbridge but the prison was in Devizes and the assizes met alternately in Salisbury and Devizes as they had done for seven centuries and as late as 1939 councillors still considered Devizes the county town and discussed moving there.
With the abolition of assizes in 1971 (I think) and the reforming of local government in 1974 we finally ended up with a clear definition of 'a county town.' And even since then, there have been moves and changes as local government is reorganised or changes are required in the building arrangements. For example, Surrey has just moved its county town from Kingston to Reigate.
Very interesting. Question: When, in2023, Westmorland and Furness become a unitary authority, along with, Cumberland as another, it is obvious (I think) that Carlisle remains the 'County Town' for Cockermouth and Workington etc. But what is the 'County Town' for Penrith (newly in W and F) or Appleby?
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Well I'm back from visiting the folks anyway. My dad is amazing for 89, he really is. Still holds forth in a booming voice on every subject under the sun. Still able to articulate opinion after opinion, every one a strong one and by no means always anchored to logic or evidence. Phew. Bit of a relief to leave and get back on here.
Well I'm back from visiting the folks anyway. My dad is amazing for 89, he really is. Still holds forth in a booming voice on every subject under the sun. Still able to articulate opinion after opinion, every one a strong one and by no means always anchored to logic or evidence. Phew. Bit of a relief to leave and get back on here.
Have we really had a whole night arguing about whether or not London is in the South East?
What's there to argue about? London is in the south-east but not in the South East.
If London is in the south-east then explain North London to me.
North London does not admit of any explanation.
North London is a homeless orphan since the abolition of Middlesex, a shameless act of gratuitous destruction.
"Gaily into Ruislip Gardens Runs the red electric train, With a thousand Ta's and Pardon's Daintily alights Elaine; Hurries down the concrete station With a frown of concentration, Out into the outskirt's edges Where a few surviving hedges Keep alive our lost Elysium - rural Middlesex again."
Well I'm back from visiting the folks anyway. My dad is amazing for 89, he really is. Still holds forth in a booming voice on every subject under the sun. Still able to articulate opinion after opinion, every one a strong one and by no means always anchored to logic or evidence. Phew. Bit of a relief to leave and get back on here.
Well I'm back from visiting the folks anyway. My dad is amazing for 89, he really is. Still holds forth in a booming voice on every subject under the sun. Still able to articulate opinion after opinion, every one a strong one and by no means always anchored to logic or evidence. Phew. Bit of a relief to leave and get back on here.
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Indeed - he said that if the government borrowed lots of money to support people and businesses through the pandemic it would really stress the public finances.
I remember reading that and going, "fuck he's right!"
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Yes. Nobody disagreed with him on the hazards either, what was boring about it all was that there was NO ALTERNATIVE. Politically you could have got away with a fck 'em, business as usual approach in the 1960s; in our current caring and highly documented on twitter with video society, it was a non-starter. When you have both parties, and all first world nations, singing from the same hymn sheet it would take moral authority Johnson could only dream of, to do things differently.
Ending an addiction to welfare and entitlements is code for letting a lot of poor people die of cold and starvation. I am not one of them, and I don't give much of a toss about them before you link to that ballsaching DM piece yet again, but that is what it is. Again, you could get away with it in the 1960s with belt-tightening metaphors, now not so much.
We have had chapter 1 of Max's memoirs, How A Tight Knit Hindu Family Came To The UK And Prospered Mightily. Chapter 2, How We Like to Give Back To The UK Via The Tax System, follows shortly.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
I do not have a problem with higher taxes for the rich and indeed the council tax banding is a disgrace and lacks more higher bands
My only concern is that is is proportionate and that we do not discourage entrepreneurs and high flyers that we need not least to assist growth
It really confirms my comments on council tax which I have always held and yes I would support this scheme
It is not without difficulty:
Willetts says: "There is a way to fix the council tax problem. Support is growing for replacing council tax and stamp duty with a proportional property tax. Previous research has shown that a Proportional Property Tax set at about 0.5 % of a property’s value would deliver lower bills for three quarters of households, while reducing them to zero for renters."
But in fact if three quarters pay less, then the other quarter are going to vote, because they get hammered, and such a large vote matters to both parties.
And secondly no-one believes for a moment that rents won't rise so that the poor occupier, not the getting richer landlord pays.
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Indeed - he said that if the government borrowed lots of money to support people and businesses through the pandemic it would really stress the public finances.
I remember reading that and going, "fuck he's right!"
I don't think anyone is really denying it. The alternative however was worse.
Have we really had a whole night arguing about whether or not London is in the South East?
What's there to argue about? London is in the south-east but not in the South East.
If London is in the south-east then explain North London to me.
North London does not admit of any explanation.
North London is a homeless orphan since the abolition of Middlesex, a shameless act of gratuitous destruction.
"Gaily into Ruislip Gardens Runs the red electric train, With a thousand Ta's and Pardon's Daintily alights Elaine; Hurries down the concrete station With a frown of concentration, Out into the outskirt's edges Where a few surviving hedges Keep alive our lost Elysium - rural Middlesex again."
Betjeman up there with Waugh in making an art form of snobbery.
First ConHome rankings on the Sunak cabinet. Kemi Badenoch is second, only to Ben Wallace while Suella Braverman - the supposed ‘darling of the right’ - is much less popular than some of the commentary would suggest.
Your daily reminder that Sunak thought bringing Gavin Williamson back into government was a good idea.
Giving Rishi the benefit of the doubt he must be much more a number’s person rather than a people person.
The problem with Gavin Williamson is that people who know him, really like him.
I think that allows him more leeway than he should be granted given his track record.
There are plenty of other public appointments we could say that about as well, of course.
Yeah he seems like a twerp on TV but my wife met him once and said that he was very nice in person and effective and engaged in the meeting they were attending.
Well I'm back from visiting the folks anyway. My dad is amazing for 89, he really is. Still holds forth in a booming voice on every subject under the sun. Still able to articulate opinion after opinion, every one a strong one and by no means always anchored to logic or evidence. Phew. Bit of a relief to leave and get back on here.
Wait, is Leon your dad?
Oh god what a thought. I consider him more like an errant cousin who you don't mind running into now and again so long as the door is open and you're not trapped.
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Yes. Nobody disagreed with him on the hazards either, what was boring about it all was that there was NO ALTERNATIVE. Politically you could have got away with a fck 'em, business as usual approach in the 1960s; in our current caring and highly documented on twitter with video society, it was a non-starter. When you have both parties, and all first world nations, singing from the same hymn sheet it would take moral authority Johnson could only dream of, to do things differently.
Ending an addiction to welfare and entitlements is code for letting a lot of poor people die of cold and starvation. I am not one of them, and I don't give much of a toss about them before you link to that ballsaching DM piece yet again, but that is what it is. Again, you could get away with it in the 1960s with belt-tightening metaphors, now not so much.
We have had chapter 1 of Max's memoirs, How A Tight Knit Hindu Family Came To The UK And Prospered Mightily. Chapter 2, How We Like to Give Back To The UK Via The Tax System, follows shortly.
So if what is necessary is politically impossible, why is anyone surprised at the overall low quality of our politicians?
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Indeed - he said that if the government borrowed lots of money to support people and businesses through the pandemic it would really stress the public finances.
I remember reading that and going, "fuck he's right!"
I don't think anyone is really denying it. The alternative however was worse.
In the short term, certainly. In the long term? Nobody ever bothered to think about that in the swirling hysteria of Spring 2020.
BoE rate announcement at midday? There seems to be some confusion, as it was going to be after the Chancellor’s now-postponed autumn statement.
Yes. Time, tide and the MPC wait for no man.
Thanks.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
Sterling slipping hard this morning as well
Remember insider trading on currencies is not a legal offence.
Does the MPC have rules around leaking their views before it's announced though ? I mean I assume they decide beforehand and "publish" the result at noon.
Well I'm back from visiting the folks anyway. My dad is amazing for 89, he really is. Still holds forth in a booming voice on every subject under the sun. Still able to articulate opinion after opinion, every one a strong one and by no means always anchored to logic or evidence. Phew. Bit of a relief to leave and get back on here.
Wait, is Leon your dad?
Oh god what a thought. I consider him more like an errant cousin who you don't mind running into now and again so long as the door is open and you're not trapped.
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Indeed - he said that if the government borrowed lots of money to support people and businesses through the pandemic it would really stress the public finances.
I remember reading that and going, "fuck he's right!"
I don't think anyone is really denying it. The alternative however was worse.
In the short term, certainly. In the long term? Nobody ever bothered to think about that in the swirling hysteria of Spring 2020.
The other alternative was either 1) No lockdown, which would have costs 000s of lives 2) No support, which would have bankrupted 000s of businesses
BoE rate announcement at midday? There seems to be some confusion, as it was going to be after the Chancellor’s now-postponed autumn statement.
Yes. Time, tide and the MPC wait for no man.
Thanks.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
Sterling slipping hard this morning as well
As expected following the Fed’s decision. The worry is that the markets are expecting 75bps, so that’s priced in already. A 50bps decision probably costs Sterling a couple of cents more.
BoE rate announcement at midday? There seems to be some confusion, as it was going to be after the Chancellor’s now-postponed autumn statement.
Yes. Time, tide and the MPC wait for no man.
Thanks.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
Sterling slipping hard this morning as well
As expected following the Fed’s decision. The worry is that the markets are expecting 75bps, so that’s priced in already. A 50bps decision probably costs Sterling a couple of cents more.
That was what i was getting at really, yeah. Any pussyfooting and that black hole expands
Obama in Arizona on Kari Lake: "Listen, if we hadn't just elected somebody whose main qualification was being on TV, you could see maybe giving it a shot..."
BoE rate announcement at midday? There seems to be some confusion, as it was going to be after the Chancellor’s now-postponed autumn statement.
Yes. Time, tide and the MPC wait for no man.
Thanks.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
Sterling slipping hard this morning as well
Remember insider trading on currencies is not a legal offence.
Does the MPC have rules around leaking their views before it's announced though ? I mean I assume they decide beforehand and "publish" the result at noon.
Their meeting concludes this morning, usually with a final vote just before the decision is announced. Presumably they are in a closed room with no phones, and a secretary who types the release to the markets.
Don’t ever recall it actually leaking, which suggests a lack of outsider knowledge prior to publication.
BoE rate announcement at midday? There seems to be some confusion, as it was going to be after the Chancellor’s now-postponed autumn statement.
Yes. Time, tide and the MPC wait for no man.
Thanks.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
That's certainly the risk. I expect a 6-3 vote for 75, but I thought they'd do 75 last time and got that wrong.
“chicken out That's certainly the risk.“
So are they doing the right thing each time - or should they have this taken away from them and given to government to get the right thing done as Trussnomics wanted? The main mistake you can make with inflation is too slow too limp a response?
Why be wedded to “independence” if it keeps producing the wrong thing, too slow too timid response to inflation?
Isn't 4* and 5* more about amenities, rather than quality though? You can have luxury B and B but it wouldn't be a 4* hotel as there is no pool, bar, gym etc. And you can have scummy hotels with those things. Or do I have that wrong?
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Indeed - he said that if the government borrowed lots of money to support people and businesses through the pandemic it would really stress the public finances.
I remember reading that and going, "fuck he's right!"
I don't think anyone is really denying it. The alternative however was worse.
In the short term, certainly. In the long term? Nobody ever bothered to think about that in the swirling hysteria of Spring 2020.
The other alternative was either 1) No lockdown, which would have costs 000s of lives 2) No support, which would have bankrupted 000s of businesses
It was the least worse option at the time.
1) would have been better.
Bankrupting the nation, jeopardising the NHS for years to come, and disrupting education for millions of children is worse than 000s dying from natural causes.
If money were no object and we had a blank cheque and could abolish NICE guidelines we could avoid 000s of deaths each year, but it is an object and we can't. Ditto for civil liberties, people die avoidable deaths every year, but losing civil liberties is worse than life reaching a natural end.
Good grief, every time I think the Tories aren't serious and maybe the Lib Dems should get my vote instead, they come out with some real whoppers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-63431894 @ 9:39am Calls for chancellor to address homeowners Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is facing calls to go to the House of Commons and address mortgage-holders on how he plans to help them, if the Bank of England increases interest rates as expected later on today.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The chancellor must address the country immediately after the rate rise decision to spell out a plan to save homeowners on the brink.
"He should either come to Parliament or hold a press conference to announce support for families facing mortgage bill rises worth hundreds of pounds a month.
"People are desperately worried about how they are going to pay these frightening mortgage payments after tomorrow," she said.
Everyone holding a mortgage should know that rates can go up as well as down, and prices can go down as well as up. Its not up to the Chancellor (read: taxpayer) to pay people's mortgages when rates change.
People have got far too addicted to the idea that taxpayers should pay for every problem, for every issue, that might ever strike anyone.
This was the moral hazard with the furlough scheme. Suddenly the taxpayer should step in everywhere "ordinary people" feel some kind of monetary pain.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
Indeed - he said that if the government borrowed lots of money to support people and businesses through the pandemic it would really stress the public finances.
I remember reading that and going, "fuck he's right!"
I don't think anyone is really denying it. The alternative however was worse.
In the short term, certainly. In the long term? Nobody ever bothered to think about that in the swirling hysteria of Spring 2020.
The other alternative was either 1) No lockdown, which would have costs 000s of lives 2) No support, which would have bankrupted 000s of businesses
It was the least worse option at the time.
In the short term, as I said. Option 2 I think is clearly worse for the country in the medium term, but option 1? The government (as I understand it) didn't even do a cost/benefit analysis.
First ConHome rankings on the Sunak cabinet. Kemi Badenoch is second, only to Ben Wallace while Suella Braverman - the supposed ‘darling of the right’ - is much less popular than some of the commentary would suggest.
Voters in the historic “red wall” seat of Sedgefield in County Durham, where Tony Blair was once elected to parliament, are willing to give Rishi Sunak a chance to improve their prospects as the cost of living crisis deepens, since Keir Starmer is “not making a case for himself”.
Members of a focus group, conducted by UK More in Common for the Guardian, described Sunak as “the money man” with a CV that proves he was the “best of a bad bunch” of Conservative leadership candidates……
“Winning back their confidence won’t be easy. But the good news for Rishi Sunak was that they thought he was the best person to clean up the mess, and didn’t think that anyone else, including Keir Starmer, would do a better job.”
Which plays into yesterday's suggestion that Rishi's faux Boris act at PMQs is deeply mistaken, and that he should revert to being the calm financial technocrat instead.
And proves once again that people will forgive the Tories anything, like a cheating husband who keeps worming his way back into the marriage. Incredible.
The reality of the situation is that Rishi is a welcome change from Truss and Boris. It’s a low bar he can walk under. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time. He will be thanked for that, at least in the short term.
What will become clear is that change whilst necessary, was insufficient. We are starting to see that already. The government is still a mess.
The Conservative party is still split and confused, the ministers are still tired, the economy is on its knees and Tory solutions have demonstrably failed. Your taxes are going up, your costs are going up. They will both likely stay up into 2024.
So the question will be do you want another 5 years of that? If Labour can demonstrate another way, the answer will be no.
Is Labour going to lower tax and public spending?
Growth would allow lower tax and higher public spending. Liz Truss was not completely wrong.
It would.
How are you going to get growth? Do you think a higher UK growth rate magically appears the moment Labour take office?
How are you going to get growth? Not by austerity, that's for sure.
Every pound saved on public services, or by real-terms tax rises / pay cuts / benefit cuts on the poor, takes money out of the economy.
Every pound saved by tax rises on the rich takes money out of the property bubble, off-shore accounts, stocks and shares, foreign holidays, etc. etc.
The only problem with taxing the rich is there are not enough of them, and the Seriousl rich just leave and pay their taxes elsewhere Taxing the rich is sensible as long as it is proportional and doesn’t encourage widespread tax evasion and loss of entrepreneurs skills to the UK
Where will the rich leave to?
Waves from a city full of rich people, attracted by low taxes.
There’s also the US, Singapore, Switzerland, Monaco, and plenty of other places where the internationally mobile can choose to live.
Theresa May warned us about you lot. Citizens of nowhere.
She did, but nobody listened.
A bunch of pro-EU types got gratuitously upset, but the real target of her ire was the Philip Greens and Richard Bransons of the world, who can and do choose to live wherever they like, paying as much tax as they feel like paying. Add to that the Googles, Amazons, Apples and Facebooks, shuffling huge piles of cash to the Caymans.
The higher taxes rise, the less ‘rich’ one has to be, to consider moving somewhere else.
...if your love of money is so over-powering.
You don't make that kind of money without loving the stuff. If you inherit it it probably comes with enough in the way of estates to keep you here.
I disagree. For plenty of people it's the thrill of the game that drives them. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, even Elon Musk were/are not doing this for the money primarily, imo. They see a project they can succeed at and pursue it with exceptional drive. They get rich as a by-product and in some cases give a lot of it away.
Of course there are those who get rich purely because they love money but not a majority imo.
"Money is just what we use to keep tally" - Henry Ford.
But there's a bias here, the ones doing something interesting are the ones we are aware of.
And I am not sure the UK is so great that it takes a slavish love of money to persuade someone to move anyway. After all you can still come here and stay in your Knightsbridge house for nearly half the year.
Which is why that Knightsbirdge house needs to be taxed a x% of it's value per year. I'll settle for 0.5% under £2m; 2% for everything over.
I do not have a problem with higher taxes for the rich and indeed the council tax banding is a disgrace and lacks more higher bands
My only concern is that is is proportionate and that we do not discourage entrepreneurs and high flyers that we need not least to assist growth
BoE rate announcement at midday? There seems to be some confusion, as it was going to be after the Chancellor’s now-postponed autumn statement.
Yes. Time, tide and the MPC wait for no man.
Thanks.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
Sterling slipping hard this morning as well
Remember insider trading on currencies is not a legal offence.
Does the MPC have rules around leaking their views before it's announced though ? I mean I assume they decide beforehand and "publish" the result at noon.
Of course they do. It would be instant dismissal for anyone caught leaking. And I'm sure they would be done for insider trading because information on the policy decision would also be relevant for the gilts market which is in scope under the relevant offences. I would look to the relationship between politicians and donors if I were to be investigating insider trading in the UK. Not because I have any information on that (I don't), but because many people have suspicions about it and the whole area seems absolutely ripe for it. Personally I wouldn't let politicians or senior SPADs meet with anyone without a civil servant present taking full minutes of the meeting.
BoE rate announcement at midday? There seems to be some confusion, as it was going to be after the Chancellor’s now-postponed autumn statement.
Yes. Time, tide and the MPC wait for no man.
Thanks.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
That's certainly the risk. I expect a 6-3 vote for 75, but I thought they'd do 75 last time and got that wrong.
“chicken out That's certainly the risk.“
So are they doing the right thing each time - or should they have this taken away from them and given to government to get the right thing done as Trussnomics wanted? The main mistake you can make with inflation is too slow too limp a response?
Why be wedded to “independence” if it keeps producing the wrong thing, too slow too timid response to inflation?
The biggest danger is the continual falling behind the Fed, especially when the inflationary pressures are coming mostly from imported and dollar-denominated commodities.
Under-raising UK rates, makes everything priced in US$ more expensive, thanks to currency movements.
Well I'm back from visiting the folks anyway. My dad is amazing for 89, he really is. Still holds forth in a booming voice on every subject under the sun. Still able to articulate opinion after opinion, every one a strong one and by no means always anchored to logic or evidence. Phew. Bit of a relief to leave and get back on here.
I can see it must feel homelike for you
Indeed!
I'm sorry to report that he had a view on matters pertaining to changing one's gender.
BoE rate announcement at midday? There seems to be some confusion, as it was going to be after the Chancellor’s now-postponed autumn statement.
Yes. Time, tide and the MPC wait for no man.
Thanks.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
Sterling slipping hard this morning as well
Remember insider trading on currencies is not a legal offence.
Does the MPC have rules around leaking their views before it's announced though ? I mean I assume they decide beforehand and "publish" the result at noon.
Their meeting concludes this morning, usually with a final vote just before the decision is announced. Presumably they are in a closed room with no phones, and a secretary who types the release to the markets.
Don’t ever recall it actually leaking, which suggests a lack of outsider knowledge prior to publication.
No the meeting was yesterday with the minutes written up overnight.
Comments
Nightmare. Like a prison
They’d be celebrating house price rises, even more than they do already for the stamp duty revenue.
The safety net has just become an all consuming, economy suffocating strangulation device. Whoever can figure out how to get the British public less addicted to welfare and entitlements will get my vote.
So there will be some nerves.
I've had a small bet on a 0-0 on First Goalscorer market with BF No Goalscorer @ 46. Odds now gone. To top up I can get 38 with BF on a 0-0 draw, but I think this might edge out a touch so am waiting.
Alternatively, she gets to mud wrestle Tulsi Gabbard for the VP slot in 2024.
My only concern is that is is proportionate and that we do not discourage entrepreneurs and high flyers that we need not least to assist growth
Proper blue wall electioneering.
Although my suspicions are this is a bad poll for Conservatives as it’s in the lower end of 25-28 herding, it’s too early for firm opinions.
Surely this months Kantor gives Tories a 30?
USA🇺🇸 will deliver the VAMPIRE Anti-Drone System to Ukraine🇺🇦 around May 2023 say US Officials
VAMPIRE C-UAS is a low cost effective solution for dealing with enemy drones, it works by firing laser guided rockets like APKWS with a range of several kilometers and speed of +2 Mach
https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/status/1587806243145613315
The missiles are based on the 2.75in rocket which dates back to the 1940s (though much upgraded since). As such they are comparatively cheap (mid $20k).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System
https://fairershare.org.uk/property-tax-would-bridge-the-wealth-gap-between-ages-lord-willetts/
https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1587949197789204480
Giving Rishi the benefit of the doubt he must be much more a number’s person rather than a people person.
Scrapping council tax
0.5% annual property tax
£200k capped basic relief MIRAS.
Would be ?
I think that allows him more leeway than he should be granted given his track record.
There are plenty of other public appointments we could say that about as well, of course.
The main claim in relation to Albania is blood feuds but an internal relocation will be possible in the vast majority of cases.
Or would you have it done on a national basis, unlike council tax?
Anyone who was NIMBY to inflate their own asset prices would have to pay an externality tax essentially caused directly by their own actions. Anyone who was YIMBY and saw decent construction in their area approved would be getting lower taxes while the new homes would pay property tax instead of it all being levied on them.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_ObRzF8I5DE
https://trib.al/ecixuwi
📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1588115771732918274/video/1
"Gaily into Ruislip Gardens
Runs the red electric train,
With a thousand Ta's and Pardon's
Daintily alights Elaine;
Hurries down the concrete station
With a frown of concentration,
Out into the outskirt's edges
Where a few surviving hedges
Keep alive our lost Elysium - rural Middlesex again."
PB does age you, you know.
I remember reading that and going, "fuck he's right!"
Ending an addiction to welfare and entitlements is code for letting a lot of poor people die of cold and starvation. I am not one of them, and I don't give much of a toss about them before you link to that ballsaching DM piece yet again, but that is what it is. Again, you could get away with it in the 1960s with belt-tightening metaphors, now not so much.
We have had chapter 1 of Max's memoirs, How A Tight Knit Hindu Family Came To The UK And Prospered Mightily. Chapter 2, How We Like to Give Back To The UK Via The Tax System, follows shortly.
Willetts says:
"There is a way to fix the council tax problem. Support is growing for replacing council tax and stamp duty with a proportional property tax. Previous research has shown that a Proportional Property Tax set at about 0.5 % of a property’s value would deliver lower bills for three quarters of households, while reducing them to zero for renters."
But in fact if three quarters pay less, then the other quarter are going to vote, because they get hammered, and such a large vote matters to both parties.
And secondly no-one believes for a moment that rents won't rise so that the poor occupier, not the getting richer landlord pays.
I reckon they chicken out and go for 50bps again.
Preposterous if its 50.
Does the MPC have rules around leaking their views before it's announced though ? I mean I assume they decide beforehand and "publish" the result at noon.
1) No lockdown, which would have costs 000s of lives
2) No support, which would have bankrupted 000s of businesses
It was the least worse option at the time.
Don’t ever recall it actually leaking, which suggests a lack of outsider knowledge prior to publication.
So are they doing the right thing each time - or should they have this taken away from them and given to government to get the right thing done as Trussnomics wanted? The main mistake you can make with inflation is too slow too limp a response?
Why be wedded to “independence” if it keeps producing the wrong thing, too slow too timid response to inflation?
Bankrupting the nation, jeopardising the NHS for years to come, and disrupting education for millions of children is worse than 000s dying from natural causes.
If money were no object and we had a blank cheque and could abolish NICE guidelines we could avoid 000s of deaths each year, but it is an object and we can't. Ditto for civil liberties, people die avoidable deaths every year, but losing civil liberties is worse than life reaching a natural end.
Would/could Commons suspension result in a by-election? Would be an interesting test for Labour if so. In reach, but not ideal.
I would look to the relationship between politicians and donors if I were to be investigating insider trading in the UK. Not because I have any information on that (I don't), but because many people have suspicions about it and the whole area seems absolutely ripe for it. Personally I wouldn't let politicians or senior SPADs meet with anyone without a civil servant present taking full minutes of the meeting.
Under-raising UK rates, makes everything priced in US$ more expensive, thanks to currency movements.
I'm sorry to report that he had a view on matters pertaining to changing one's gender.