Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
I think it’s a numbers game. Rates only started going up 18 months ago, and many people took 3 or 5 year fixes on their mortgages in anticipation.
The reality at the crossover point is going to be something like 90% of people making an average £100 a month from savings, and 10% of people being a grand a month down on their mortgage! Only one group will have anything to say about that situation, and it’s isn’t the savers.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
I think it’s a numbers game. Rates only started going up 18 months ago, and many people took 3 or 5 year fixes on their mortgages in anticipation.
The reality at the crossover point is going to be something like 90% of people making an average £100 a month from savings, and 10% of people being a grand a month down on their mortgage! Only one group will have anything to say about that situation, and it’s isn’t the savers.
Like chucking tar onto a giant set of rolling gears. They'll keep going, but it won't be pretty when the tar finally does stick.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Offset accounts. Anybody with a mortgage who has savings in an offset account is seeing interest rising on those savings dramatically. If your savings are sufficiently large, then the increase in payments to you by the bank may actually offset the increase in payments from you for the mortgage.
@danbloom1 NEW: The SNP's Mhairi Black tells @TheNewsAgents she is stepping down at the next election.
That means two people who not so long ago were the youngest MP in Parliament — first Chloe Smith, then Mhairi Black — are both leaving in 2024.
It's a slightly different situation for SNP MPs leaving.
Undoubtedly, some of it will be to do with major problems their party is facing. But it also isn't obvious that being an MP is the pinnacle of an SNP politician's political career, and it will be interesting to see which of those leaving pop up as MSP candidates in 2026.
This is correct. Logically enough for the SNP.
There will also be the odd by-election arising from the departure of the odd constituency MP. However, the presence of the party system reduces the by-election opportunities (because gaps are filled, usually, from the first vacancy of the party in question).
As Luntz said on current polls any Tory MP with a majority under 15,000 is likely gone at the next general election. Hence a lot of Tory MPs standing down. That gap may close but likely still many face defeat if running again.
However I have more respect for those who will go down with the ship and stand again even if they face likely defeat, that includes IDS, or those willing to serve as MPs on the opposition benches and continue to serve their constituents and hold the government to account. Those rushing off to seek a directorship or lobbyist post asap as soon as the election is called may be doing better for their careers but it is the former group who should have the most respect
Far too crude a statement of course. For example in 1997 David Heathcoat-Amory was defending a majority of just 6,649 in Wells against the LDs in one of their top target seats in the general area, and he held on by 528 votes. (This was a seat that included Glastonbury incidentally, and probably still does).
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
It is comparing the difference between savings interest and mortgage payments. Asset value fluctuations are not considered, nor are bond interest or other loan interest payments.
It is not trying to present a full picture but explaining why interest rate rises are going to take a longer time than expected to impact on inflation and the economy.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm on the interest-plus side too with no mortgage and modest savings. Interest isn't my main source of income, but it is a useful supplement.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
If you are making £40,000 on it, that's enough to live on without drawing on the capital (unless you're Johnny Depp or Prince Harry).
As Luntz said on current polls any Tory MP with a majority under 15,000 is likely gone at the next general election. Hence a lot of Tory MPs standing down. That gap may close but likely still many face defeat if running again.
However I have more respect for those who will go down with the ship and stand again even if they face likely defeat, that includes IDS, or those willing to serve as MPs on the opposition benches and continue to serve their constituents and hold the government to account. Those rushing off to seek a directorship or lobbyist post asap as soon as the election is called may be doing better for their careers but it is the former group who should have the most respect
Far too crude a statement of course. For example in 1997 David Heathcoat-Amory was defending a majority of just 6,649 in Wells against the LDs in one of their top target seats in the general area, and he held on by 528 votes. (This was a seat that included Glastonbury incidentally, and probably still does).
The Labour vote was up 7.5% there though (Labour candidate was Glastonbury founder Michael Eavis), while the 2nd placed LDs saw their vote only up 0.4% on 1992.
So despite Heathcoat-Amory's vote being down 10.2% on 1992, he won with a split opposition vote
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
You can get 6% on a fixed-term savings account at the moment. There's a good chance that inflation will fall below that in the no-too-distant future.
As Luntz said on current polls any Tory MP with a majority under 15,000 is likely gone at the next general election. Hence a lot of Tory MPs standing down. That gap may close but likely still many face defeat if running again.
However I have more respect for those who will go down with the ship and stand again even if they face likely defeat, that includes IDS, or those willing to serve as MPs on the opposition benches and continue to serve their constituents and hold the government to account. Those rushing off to seek a directorship or lobbyist post asap as soon as the election is called may be doing better for their careers but it is the former group who should have the most respect
Far too crude a statement of course. For example in 1997 David Heathcoat-Amory was defending a majority of just 6,649 in Wells against the LDs in one of their top target seats in the general area, and he held on by 528 votes. (This was a seat that included Glastonbury incidentally, and probably still does).
The inclusion of Glastonbury is relevant in that the Labour candidate in 1997 was Michael Eavis, and having a well known name as third party candidate rather harmed the Lib Dem efforts to squeeze the Labour vote.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
You are logically correct but its not how a lot of savers act. They have £x savings that they won't touch outside of emergencies/major life events but are happy to spend the £y interest it generates.
Logically they should be fairly indifferent between spending the savings or interest but most are not.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
You can get 6% on a fixed-term savings account at the moment. There's a good chance that inflation will fall below that in the no-too-distant future.
Also if you are saving for a house, even 4% is likely to be generating a positive return vs property prices. Inflation for things people save for is quite different to inflation people need to buy.
Instead of dropping the age at which someone could become an MP from 21 to 18 a few years ago, I think it should have been raised to 25. Mhairi Black was 20 when first elected and that's too young in my opinion. Nothing to do with her personally, it's just an example. The House of Representatives in the USA has an age limit of 25.
Mum just shouted at me for telling her the following joke:
Tennis player Jeremy Chardy is Jeremy Hardy's long-lost French cousin
Chardy ? That's a French tankie.
No, that's the Char-B
Ah, my kepi, thank you
French grape variety isn't it? Though one of the varieties I'm growing is in fact Melon-B.
No. It's a famous French tank. After WW1 France was critically short of men and so could not father enough soldiers to fight WWII. Pre-war designers had compensated by designing tanks that were very heavily armoured and had one-person turrets. This was fine and all, but the result was too slow and not fast enough in firing to cope with the German Panzer 1 and 2s speeding over France. Disorientated, the Char-B was captured or destroyed, and in one infamous case was carried away from the front by train which was then captured and taken intact by the Germans.
Twas a joke
Likewise - 'Char-dy' = 'Tank-ie'.
Tough crowd today.
I apologise. I shall make a sacrifice to St Bruce of Forsyth and recite the "four candles" sketch until my guilt is assuaged.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
Well, it looks about as money-like as money ever does. You won't be thrown out of the Ritz for trying to pay a bill of up to £40,000 with it on the grounds of Oh no, sir, that's negative money when you consider inflation.
On thread, I agree that high numbers of MPs standing down will impact on the Tory incumbency bonus.
But the quoted HoC Library figure of 44 Conservatives standing down understates the full loss of incumbency benefits to the Conservatives. When you factor in all the different reasons why an MP elected as a Conservative in 2019 won't be standing again as a Conservative for the equivalent (post boundary review) seat in 2024, then currently I estimate that they are losing incumbency benefits in a 62 seats, reduced to a net 59 if you count Conservatives elected since 2019 in by-elections.
The calculation is: - Current Conservative MPs who have announced their intention to stand down. Wiki currently has this number at 43. - MPs formally elected as Conservatives who have announced their intention to stand down but who are now sitting as independents following scandals (Hancock, Knight, Pincher) - Hudson and Drummond, who have been deselected rather than stand down voluntarily but who are looking around still for alternatives so are not included in the 43 above - Bridgen, defecting to the Reclaim Party - Wakeford, defected to Labour - Hughes and Stewart, bailing out to different seats - By-elections already held in 6 seats which elected Conservatives in 2019, in only 2 of which the Conservatives retained the seat. - Johnson, Adams, Warburton who have just resigned to cause pending by-elections - Dorries who will also go, but because of uncertainty on the timing is also not listed among the 43 Against that the Conservatives picked up Hartlepool in a by-election.
So I make it that that's a net 59 seats won by the Conservatives in 2019 where the Conservative candidate won't have an incumbency bonus.
In many other seats the incumbency effect will also be diluted to a greater or lesser extent where the old seat is split due to boundary changes.
And there is still a year to go, time for many more to jump ship.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
Say you have £2m in cash. 2 years ago it paid you £30k. Now it pays you £90k. That's triple the annual income you used to have. A 300% increase. But your expenses have only gone up say 20%. You are much better off on an 'income and expenditure account' basis. You're rolling in it.
Ok so if you're in the habit of doing your personal balance sheet on an inflation adjusted basis, ie you adjust the 'present value' of your principle (the £2m) using the now higher discount rate, you've 'lost' significant value there.
So it depends how you look at it. But that income gain is perfectly real (compared to not having it) and most people don't do the NPV balance sheet adjustment for the higher discount rate. So they'll feel richer and they aren't wrong. They're not 100% right either, but they're not wrong.
Instead of dropping the age at which someone could become an MP from 21 to 18 a few years ago, I think it should have been raised to 25. Mhairi Black was 20 when first elected and that's too young in my opinion. Nothing to do with her personally, it's just an example. The House of Representatives in the USA has an age limit of 25.
The only thing that stops me suggesting the age limit should be 50 is that both Johnson and Corbyn were rather older than that.
Instead of dropping the age at which someone could become an MP from 21 to 18 a few years ago, I think it should have been raised to 25. Mhairi Black was 20 when first elected and that's too young in my opinion. Nothing to do with her personally, it's just an example. The House of Representatives in the USA has an age limit of 25.
I agree practice it is going to be too young for most, but given the younger generations have been repeatedly shafted, dont vote enough and any MPs actually being under 25 is exceptionally rare the message it would send to ban them would be quite wrong.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
Attackers break Russian journalist’s fingers and stab human rights lawyer in Chechnya Elena Milashina and Alexander Nemov were on their way to the sentencing of a human rights activist in Grozny when they were assaulted https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/04/attackers-break-russian-journalists-fingers-and-stab-human-rights-lawyer-in-chechnya ...Memorial, a rights group outlawed in Russia, said that Milashina and Nemov had been “brutally kicked, including in the face, threatened with death, had a gun held to their heads, and had their equipment taken away and smashed.”
“While being beaten, they were told: ‘You have been warned. Get out of here and don’t write anything,’” Memorial said in a statement on Telegram.
Despite being stabbed in the leg, Nemov still appeared at the court hearing on Tuesday, where his client Musayeva was sentenced to 5 and a half years in a penal colony.
Unusually, a number of prominent officials, state TV pundits and others who generally ignore similar attacks on journalists called for an investigation, pointing to a culture of general lawlessness in Chechnya.
Dmitri Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson said that President Putin had been informed about the assault and called it a “very serious attack that requires rather energetic measures.”
Yet Milashina had been threatened for years by Kadyrov and other members of the Chechen government close to him. In 2020, Kadyrov appeared to threaten her directly, saying on Instagram in response to an article about the republic’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic: “If you want us to commit a crime and become criminals, then say so. One will take on this burden of responsibility and will be punished according to the law. He’ll do his time in jail and get out.”..
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
The prudent fatcat holds a judicious mixture of a little bit of everything, for this very reason. And watches them all head south in lockstep.
The Tory MP most likely to hold on despite a small majority is probably David Duguid in Banff and Buchan who has a majority of 4,118 over the SNP. I don't know what boundary changes are planned there.
Whilst I am pleased to hear this, it illustrates a problem with the Ukranian counter-attack: it's very slow. It's not like late last year when the Ukranian surge coincided with the Russian collapse in certain areas, they're now counterattacking in areas where the Russians are well-prepared and have prepared defenses and mined the area. It's World War One and all the gains are slooooow.
It’s not WWI
What is happening is that the Russians have setup dense minefields in front of their defence lines.
The Ukrainian need to clear the mines, under fire. This they are doing, often with western provided special armoured vehicles. Giant Viper type systems are apparently being used a lot.
All this limits their advances to breaking through a minefield and taking the position behind it. They then need to rearm and prepare for the next assault.
This is why we are only seeing a limited number of units being involved - they are holding back the majority of their forces to (probably) exploit the breakthrough, when it reaches open country.
The Russians seem to be holding back a reserve to counter such a break out.
There is precious little "open country" as both sides have used the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty as a jizz rag and deployed (literally) millions of anti-personnel mines. Even when an area is cleared it gets immediately remined by PFM or similar.
I've seen some bleak shit in my time but that Bradley stuck in a minefield video was a tough watch and shows just how difficult any type of manoeuvring is. Hence, crimson drenched stalemate. #winninghere #overbyxmas #wheresthechallengers
Thanks for that. I've just googled "Bradley Minefield Video"
Attackers break Russian journalist’s fingers and stab human rights lawyer in Chechnya Elena Milashina and Alexander Nemov were on their way to the sentencing of a human rights activist in Grozny when they were assaulted https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/04/attackers-break-russian-journalists-fingers-and-stab-human-rights-lawyer-in-chechnya ...Memorial, a rights group outlawed in Russia, said that Milashina and Nemov had been “brutally kicked, including in the face, threatened with death, had a gun held to their heads, and had their equipment taken away and smashed.”
“While being beaten, they were told: ‘You have been warned. Get out of here and don’t write anything,’” Memorial said in a statement on Telegram.
Despite being stabbed in the leg, Nemov still appeared at the court hearing on Tuesday, where his client Musayeva was sentenced to 5 and a half years in a penal colony.
Unusually, a number of prominent officials, state TV pundits and others who generally ignore similar attacks on journalists called for an investigation, pointing to a culture of general lawlessness in Chechnya.
Dmitri Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson said that President Putin had been informed about the assault and called it a “very serious attack that requires rather energetic measures.”
Yet Milashina had been threatened for years by Kadyrov and other members of the Chechen government close to him. In 2020, Kadyrov appeared to threaten her directly, saying on Instagram in response to an article about the republic’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic: “If you want us to commit a crime and become criminals, then say so. One will take on this burden of responsibility and will be punished according to the law. He’ll do his time in jail and get out.”..
Some of the stories coming out of the LPR and DPR between 2014 and 2022 were quite horrific. Russia's bloody hands, yet again.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
With premium bonds, if you have 50k the winnings are paid straight to your bank account. It feels no different to wages/pension to most and is spent accordingly, even if the purchasing power of that 50k declines over time.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
Purely from a savings account though? If so you must have been living on thin air these last years
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
As Luntz said on current polls any Tory MP with a majority under 15,000 is likely gone at the next general election. Hence a lot of Tory MPs standing down. That gap may close but likely still many face defeat if running again.
However I have more respect for those who will go down with the ship and stand again even if they face likely defeat, that includes IDS, or those willing to serve as MPs on the opposition benches and continue to serve their constituents and hold the government to account. Those rushing off to seek a directorship or lobbyist post asap as soon as the election is called may be doing better for their careers but it is the former group who should have the most respect
The problem with saying such things HY, as you often do, is how much is a prediction based just on uniform con to Lab swing nationally? But the feature right now is we are likely to get more of a “get the Tories out” tactical vote in the General Election next May than there even was in 1997.
As an example, Polling report has Penny Mourdant safe. It’s needs a 17% con to lab swing to remove her from a post election leadership contest, identical to what done for Portillo in 97. But if we factor in willingness of Lib Dem’s are greens to vote tactically, are there enough votes there for Tories to lose the seat?
Extrapolating this example to seat totals, today July 2023 polling report has Tories getting as high as 189 seats - is this just uniform swing based on current polls with no tactical voting at all? The gap between Tory to Labour could close to single digits and the Tories get less than 189.
Mordaunt's majority is 15,780, so exactly on the border of the Tory seats with majorities of 15,000 or less Luntz says will be lost on current polls.
Her seat was also Labour from 1997 to 2010
My point being, the reason May’s local election models predicted a hung Parliament was the psephologists will only work with votes they know as fact, no local elections in Scotland + Wales this year so no updated facts to work with (the polling report model above has Labour on more than 350 MP still with Scotland returning 44 SNP). The Psephologists won’t go into fantasy land anticipating tactical voting which might not even happen.
But here on PB we should be looking at that 189 based solely on uniform national swing and suspecting that’s really sub 150 Tory MPs shouldn’t we?
There may be more LD tactical votes for Labour in Tory marginals however the Labour vote will also be up on 2019 in Tory marginals the LDs are targeting.
Remember too many LD voters in the local elections will vote Conservative in the general election when faced with the risk of a Labour government increasing their taxes rather than just a LD led council
It’s looking like you are right HY. Nationally Labour are infeasibly high in the polls, the libdems look low compared to what they get at local elections when the area goes gold.
The blue wall polling is key here. Today points to high labour votes in constituencies the Lib Dem’s could have won without much targeting, if the Lib Dem’s squeezed labour to go beyond the Tory total.
We are agreed, if we see the Tory’s pull away from labour in the blue wall, this could be disaster for the Tories if its labour vote haemorrhaging to libdems? 8 more off labour in blue wall all added to libdems could see libdems top 50 on expense of the Tories.
But we are not seeing this in national or blue wall polling. Labour vote remains too high to hurt the conservatives, and Libdem vote too low, when at this stage the Lab and green voters must know they will vote lidbdem at the general election to hurt the Tories, why are they not reporting this to pollsters?
At this stage you appear correct HY, Lab and green tactical switch to libdem to get the Tory’s out is not being picked up in any polling.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
With premium bonds, if you have 50k the winnings are paid straight to your bank account. It feels no different to wages/pension to most and is spent accordingly, even if the purchasing power of that 50k declines over time.
Yes it's hard cash and it's now. The corresponding loss (which is probably bigger) is a little bit theoretical (although correct) and it isn't now.
Instead of dropping the age at which someone could become an MP from 21 to 18 a few years ago, I think it should have been raised to 25. Mhairi Black was 20 when first elected and that's too young in my opinion. Nothing to do with her personally, it's just an example. The House of Representatives in the USA has an age limit of 25.
The point about democracy is not to develop wise government, it is to obtain the consent of the governed. As a tax-paying adult Black had a right to express an opinion via her vote, and to act as an agent for others in Parliament.
Instead of dropping the age at which someone could become an MP from 21 to 18 a few years ago, I think it should have been raised to 25. Mhairi Black was 20 when first elected and that's too young in my opinion. Nothing to do with her personally, it's just an example. The House of Representatives in the USA has an age limit of 25.
Sounds good. Presumably this restriction means nobody unsuitable, inexperienced, or downright mad ever gets elected to the US House of Representatives?
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
Two hundred and forty-seven years after 1776 . . . and the Colonials are STILL revolting!!!!
Useless fact: this is one day of the year when Americans say the date the way people from most other countries do. 4th of July, not July 4th.
Ha that's true. Presumably because when they first started referring to it they still used the same date format as the rest of us? I wonder when and why it changed?
Two hundred and forty-seven years after 1776 . . . and the Colonials are STILL revolting!!!!
Useless fact: this is one day of the year when Americans say the date the way people from most other countries do. 4th of July, not July 4th.
Ha that's true. Presumably because when they first started referring to it they still used the same date format as the rest of us? I wonder when and why it changed?
The one that does my head in is the omission of the word "on" in sentences such as "President Biden said Monday..."
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
Happy 2023-07-04. As is traditional on your independence day, please note that you do have the option to rejoin the United Kingdom free of charge. We can offer a better system of government and all the rain you can eat. This offer will expire at 23:59 tonight (BST) so don't delay!
Two hundred and forty-seven years after 1776 . . . and the Colonials are STILL revolting!!!!
Happy 4th of July, SSI! Go and celebrate the independence of your country by blowing a tiny part of it up.
We have our fireworks in November. Fireworks in early July at 53 degrees north need to wait until about 11pm to be visible. But I suppose at your balmy latitudes this is less of an issue. What time does it get dark where you are?
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
Labour usually wins big majorities when the economy is doing well, which was the case in 1997, 2001, 1966.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Offset accounts. Anybody with a mortgage who has savings in an offset account is seeing interest rising on those savings dramatically. If your savings are sufficiently large, then the increase in payments to you by the bank may actually offset the increase in payments from you for the mortgage.
Fantasy , they increase savings rates well below mortgage rate increases and so no way especially given most people if they hgad that amount sitting in account would pay their mortgage off.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
Purely from a savings account though? If so you must have been living on thin air these last years
True. But wealthy non working people with an investment portfolio skewed to low risk cash type assets, eg term deposits, short dated bonds etc - their total income will be much much higher now than it was a couple of years ago. Plus all those (a bigger number, I'd have thought) in a position whereby interest from these type of assets isn't all or most of their income but is still a fair chunk of it.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Nigelb - Thanks much. Later I will be watching the local parade. It's just the right size for my tastes -- and diverse enough to satisfy most. Last year, for example, it included a Ukrainian group with a thnks banner, a Muslim women's group, Falun Gong with impressive costumes, Scots playing bagpipes, and many politicians.
(In the past, there was a group of young ladies from a store that sold bikinis. They looked both fit and patriotic.)
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
You can get 6% on a fixed-term savings account at the moment. There's a good chance that inflation will fall below that in the no-too-distant future.
How do you live during the fixed term with no income
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Well quite. There’s good reason that most fund managers buy more shares with the dividends, rather than handing them back to the investors.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
Say you have £2m in cash. 2 years ago it paid you £30k. Now it pays you £90k. That's triple the annual income you used to have. A 300% increase. But your expenses have only gone up say 20%. You are much better off on an 'income and expenditure account' basis. You're rolling in it.
Ok so if you're in the habit of doing your personal balance sheet on an inflation adjusted basis, ie you adjust the 'present value' of your principle (the £2m) using the now higher discount rate, you've 'lost' significant value there.
So it depends how you look at it. But that income gain is perfectly real (compared to not having it) and most people don't do the NPV balance sheet adjustment for the higher discount rate. So they'll feel richer and they aren't wrong. They're not 100% right either, but they're not wrong.
Country is full of people with £2M in readies right enough.
As Luntz said on current polls any Tory MP with a majority under 15,000 is likely gone at the next general election. Hence a lot of Tory MPs standing down. That gap may close but likely still many face defeat if running again.
However I have more respect for those who will go down with the ship and stand again even if they face likely defeat, that includes IDS, or those willing to serve as MPs on the opposition benches and continue to serve their constituents and hold the government to account. Those rushing off to seek a directorship or lobbyist post asap as soon as the election is called may be doing better for their careers but it is the former group who should have the most respect
The problem with saying such things HY, as you often do, is how much is a prediction based just on uniform con to Lab swing nationally? But the feature right now is we are likely to get more of a “get the Tories out” tactical vote in the General Election next May than there even was in 1997.
As an example, Polling report has Penny Mourdant safe. It’s needs a 17% con to lab swing to remove her from a post election leadership contest, identical to what done for Portillo in 97. But if we factor in willingness of Lib Dem’s are greens to vote tactically, are there enough votes there for Tories to lose the seat?
Extrapolating this example to seat totals, today July 2023 polling report has Tories getting as high as 189 seats - is this just uniform swing based on current polls with no tactical voting at all? The gap between Tory to Labour could close to single digits and the Tories get less than 189.
Mordaunt's majority is 15,780, so exactly on the border of the Tory seats with majorities of 15,000 or less Luntz says will be lost on current polls.
Her seat was also Labour from 1997 to 2010
My point being, the reason May’s local election models predicted a hung Parliament was the psephologists will only work with votes they know as fact, no local elections in Scotland + Wales this year so no updated facts to work with (the polling report model above has Labour on more than 350 MP still with Scotland returning 44 SNP). The Psephologists won’t go into fantasy land anticipating tactical voting which might not even happen.
But here on PB we should be looking at that 189 based solely on uniform national swing and suspecting that’s really sub 150 Tory MPs shouldn’t we?
There may be more LD tactical votes for Labour in Tory marginals however the Labour vote will also be up on 2019 in Tory marginals the LDs are targeting.
Remember too many LD voters in the local elections will vote Conservative in the general election when faced with the risk of a Labour government increasing their taxes rather than just a LD led council
It’s looking like you are right HY. Nationally Labour are infeasibly high in the polls, the libdems look low compared to what they get at local elections when the area goes gold.
The blue wall polling is key here. Today points to high labour votes in constituencies the Lib Dem’s could have won without much targeting, if the Lib Dem’s squeezed labour to go beyond the Tory total.
We are agreed, if we see the Tory’s pull away from labour in the blue wall, this could be disaster for the Tories if its labour vote haemorrhaging to libdems? 8 more off labour in blue wall all added to libdems could see libdems top 50 on expense of the Tories.
But we are not seeing this in national or blue wall polling. Labour vote remains too high to hurt the conservatives, and Libdem vote too low, when at this stage the Lab and green voters must know they will vote lidbdem at the general election to hurt the Tories, why are they not reporting this to pollsters?
At this stage you appear correct HY, Lab and green tactical switch to libdem to get the Tory’s out is not being picked up in any polling.
Suppose there is a 50% tactical switch of a 40% Lab and Green vote in Tory/LD marginals. At most there are about 50 such marginals so this translates to 50%x40%x50/625 = 1.6%
There has been a recent increase of about 2% in the Lib Dem national share so maybe that is it.
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
Labour usually wins big majorities when the economy is doing well, which was the case in 1997, 2001, 1966.
But we were completely broke in 1945. And I'm not sure we were doing that well in 1966 - the devaluation crisis was the next year. And the economy was doing well in 1987 and the Tories won. I don't feel like the sample size is big enough to really make this claim with a lot of confidence. But I certainly do think Labour will come under a lot more scrutiny during an election, which is one reason why the polls will probably narrow a bit. The article reads like Ganesh is making a clever argument that he doesn't really believe (quite a lot of his articles read like this TBH).
Whilst I am pleased to hear this, it illustrates a problem with the Ukranian counter-attack: it's very slow. It's not like late last year when the Ukranian surge coincided with the Russian collapse in certain areas, they're now counterattacking in areas where the Russians are well-prepared and have prepared defenses and mined the area. It's World War One and all the gains are slooooow.
It’s not WWI
What is happening is that the Russians have setup dense minefields in front of their defence lines.
The Ukrainian need to clear the mines, under fire. This they are doing, often with western provided special armoured vehicles. Giant Viper type systems are apparently being used a lot.
All this limits their advances to breaking through a minefield and taking the position behind it. They then need to rearm and prepare for the next assault.
This is why we are only seeing a limited number of units being involved - they are holding back the majority of their forces to (probably) exploit the breakthrough, when it reaches open country.
The Russians seem to be holding back a reserve to counter such a break out.
There is precious little "open country" as both sides have used the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty as a jizz rag and deployed (literally) millions of anti-personnel mines. Even when an area is cleared it gets immediately remined by PFM or similar.
I've seen some bleak shit in my time but that Bradley stuck in a minefield video was a tough watch and shows just how difficult any type of manoeuvring is. Hence, crimson drenched stalemate. #winninghere #overbyxmas #wheresthechallengers
Thanks for that. I've just googled "Bradley Minefield Video"
Jesus F C
There's a much longer version on Telegram with the build up and denouement. The squad of six have about two and a half legs left between the lot of them by the end. Grim viewing and it demonstrates how easy it is to take overwhelming casualties while achieving nothing in particular on mined terrain.
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
I sense a big majority but I'm trying to quell it because I don't want to find myself feeling 'meh' if it's only 25 or 30. Any Labour outright GE win has to be celebrated all guns blazing. They don't happen too often, let's face it.
As Luntz said on current polls any Tory MP with a majority under 15,000 is likely gone at the next general election. Hence a lot of Tory MPs standing down. That gap may close but likely still many face defeat if running again.
However I have more respect for those who will go down with the ship and stand again even if they face likely defeat, that includes IDS, or those willing to serve as MPs on the opposition benches and continue to serve their constituents and hold the government to account. Those rushing off to seek a directorship or lobbyist post asap as soon as the election is called may be doing better for their careers but it is the former group who should have the most respect
The problem with saying such things HY, as you often do, is how much is a prediction based just on uniform con to Lab swing nationally? But the feature right now is we are likely to get more of a “get the Tories out” tactical vote in the General Election next May than there even was in 1997.
As an example, Polling report has Penny Mourdant safe. It’s needs a 17% con to lab swing to remove her from a post election leadership contest, identical to what done for Portillo in 97. But if we factor in willingness of Lib Dem’s are greens to vote tactically, are there enough votes there for Tories to lose the seat?
Extrapolating this example to seat totals, today July 2023 polling report has Tories getting as high as 189 seats - is this just uniform swing based on current polls with no tactical voting at all? The gap between Tory to Labour could close to single digits and the Tories get less than 189.
Mordaunt's majority is 15,780, so exactly on the border of the Tory seats with majorities of 15,000 or less Luntz says will be lost on current polls.
Her seat was also Labour from 1997 to 2010
My point being, the reason May’s local election models predicted a hung Parliament was the psephologists will only work with votes they know as fact, no local elections in Scotland + Wales this year so no updated facts to work with (the polling report model above has Labour on more than 350 MP still with Scotland returning 44 SNP). The Psephologists won’t go into fantasy land anticipating tactical voting which might not even happen.
But here on PB we should be looking at that 189 based solely on uniform national swing and suspecting that’s really sub 150 Tory MPs shouldn’t we?
There may be more LD tactical votes for Labour in Tory marginals however the Labour vote will also be up on 2019 in Tory marginals the LDs are targeting.
Remember too many LD voters in the local elections will vote Conservative in the general election when faced with the risk of a Labour government increasing their taxes rather than just a LD led council
And yet that chart at the top of the previous thread showed that only about 16-17% of voters were concerned about taxation.
In any event, the Tory record on taxation is hardly going to attract voters worried about it.
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
I sense a big majority but I'm trying to quell it because I don't want to find myself feeling 'meh' if it's only 25 or 30. Any Labour outright GE win has to be celebrated all guns blazing. They don't happen too often, let's face it.
Current New Boundary Prediction: Labour majority 302
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
I sense a big majority but I'm trying to quell it because I don't want to find myself feeling 'meh' if it's only 25 or 30. Any Labour outright GE win has to be celebrated all guns blazing. They don't happen too often, let's face it.
The Tories certainly deserve to lose big but I think their grip on a certain portion of the electorate is so strong thanks to Brexit and other mad culture wars nonsense that it will prevent them getting routed. Plus people don't really trust Labour either. I think the mood is to give them the benefit of the doubt but it is sufficiently grudging that the Tories will hold on in places like the Midlands and Essex and Kent. Labour at 340 +/-30 seats feels about right to me.
Whilst I am pleased to hear this, it illustrates a problem with the Ukranian counter-attack: it's very slow. It's not like late last year when the Ukranian surge coincided with the Russian collapse in certain areas, they're now counterattacking in areas where the Russians are well-prepared and have prepared defenses and mined the area. It's World War One and all the gains are slooooow.
It’s not WWI
What is happening is that the Russians have setup dense minefields in front of their defence lines.
The Ukrainian need to clear the mines, under fire. This they are doing, often with western provided special armoured vehicles. Giant Viper type systems are apparently being used a lot.
All this limits their advances to breaking through a minefield and taking the position behind it. They then need to rearm and prepare for the next assault.
This is why we are only seeing a limited number of units being involved - they are holding back the majority of their forces to (probably) exploit the breakthrough, when it reaches open country.
The Russians seem to be holding back a reserve to counter such a break out.
There is precious little "open country" as both sides have used the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty as a jizz rag and deployed (literally) millions of anti-personnel mines. Even when an area is cleared it gets immediately remined by PFM or similar.
I've seen some bleak shit in my time but that Bradley stuck in a minefield video was a tough watch and shows just how difficult any type of manoeuvring is. Hence, crimson drenched stalemate. #winninghere #overbyxmas #wheresthechallengers
Thanks for that. I've just googled "Bradley Minefield Video"
Jesus F C
There's a much longer version on Telegram with the build up and denouement. The squad of six have about two and a half legs left between the lot of them by the end. Grim viewing and it demonstrates how easy it is to take overwhelming casualties while achieving nothing in particular on mined terrain.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
You can get 6% on a fixed-term savings account at the moment. There's a good chance that inflation will fall below that in the no-too-distant future.
How do you live during the fixed term with no income
Also HMRC have shown a tendency to tax one at the very end of the term (certainly for certain National Savings). This piles 5 years' income into one year which is not great for one's income tax. Currently a PITA for me trying to sort this out for my income tax.
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
I sense a big majority but I'm trying to quell it because I don't want to find myself feeling 'meh' if it's only 25 or 30. Any Labour outright GE win has to be celebrated all guns blazing. They don't happen too often, let's face it.
The Tories certainly deserve to lose big but I think their grip on a certain portion of the electorate is so strong thanks to Brexit and other mad culture wars nonsense that it will prevent them getting routed. Plus people don't really trust Labour either. I think the mood is to give them the benefit of the doubt but it is sufficiently grudging that the Tories will hold on in places like the Midlands and Essex and Kent. Labour at 340 +/-30 seats feels about right to me.
I think that might be right. The Tories deserve a hammering after the last few years but I will be returning to (grudgingly) vote for them because I really do fear an overwhelming Labour majority.
"The RNC has said that to qualify for the first debate, scheduled for Aug. 23 in Milwaukee, candidates must be polling at a minimum of 1 percent in at least three national polls, or in two national polls and one early state poll from two of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Candidates also must satisfy a fundraising requirement, having a minimum of 40,000 unique donors and at least 200 unique donors each from 20 or more states or territories."
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Persistent high inflation is a very bad thing. It's the pits. But as we go through this painful (and inevitable but too rapid) transition from cheap money to normal money, there are lots of people benefiting (in hard 'now' cash terms) and I think this is a little bit under-appreciated. Although maybe not now since I've banged on about it for the best part of an afternoon.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Comments
The reality at the crossover point is going to be something like 90% of people making an average £100 a month from savings, and 10% of people being a grand a month down on their mortgage! Only one group will have anything to say about that situation, and it’s isn’t the savers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
It is not trying to present a full picture but explaining why interest rate rises are going to take a longer time than expected to impact on inflation and the economy.
So it would be sufficient income to survive on.
So despite Heathcoat-Amory's vote being down 10.2% on 1992, he won with a split opposition vote
Logically they should be fairly indifferent between spending the savings or interest but most are not.
Best to keep some over for tips, though.
But the quoted HoC Library figure of 44 Conservatives standing down understates the full loss of incumbency benefits to the Conservatives. When you factor in all the different reasons why an MP elected as a Conservative in 2019 won't be standing again as a Conservative for the equivalent (post boundary review) seat in 2024, then currently I estimate that they are losing incumbency benefits in a 62 seats, reduced to a net 59 if you count Conservatives elected since 2019 in by-elections.
The calculation is:
- Current Conservative MPs who have announced their intention to stand down. Wiki currently has this number at 43.
- MPs formally elected as Conservatives who have announced their intention to stand down but who are now sitting as independents following scandals (Hancock, Knight, Pincher)
- Hudson and Drummond, who have been deselected rather than stand down voluntarily but who are looking around still for alternatives so are not included in the 43 above
- Bridgen, defecting to the Reclaim Party
- Wakeford, defected to Labour
- Hughes and Stewart, bailing out to different seats
- By-elections already held in 6 seats which elected Conservatives in 2019, in only 2 of which the Conservatives retained the seat.
- Johnson, Adams, Warburton who have just resigned to cause pending by-elections
- Dorries who will also go, but because of uncertainty on the timing is also not listed among the 43
Against that the Conservatives picked up Hartlepool in a by-election.
So I make it that that's a net 59 seats won by the Conservatives in 2019 where the Conservative candidate won't have an incumbency bonus.
In many other seats the incumbency effect will also be diluted to a greater or lesser extent where the old seat is split due to boundary changes.
And there is still a year to go, time for many more to jump ship.
Ok so if you're in the habit of doing your personal balance sheet on an inflation adjusted basis, ie you adjust the 'present value' of your principle (the £2m) using the now higher discount rate, you've 'lost' significant value there.
So it depends how you look at it. But that income gain is perfectly real (compared to not having it) and most people don't do the NPV balance sheet adjustment for the higher discount rate. So they'll feel richer and they aren't wrong. They're not 100% right either, but they're not wrong.
Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
Elena Milashina and Alexander Nemov were on their way to the sentencing of a human rights activist in Grozny when they were assaulted
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/04/attackers-break-russian-journalists-fingers-and-stab-human-rights-lawyer-in-chechnya
...Memorial, a rights group outlawed in Russia, said that Milashina and Nemov had been “brutally kicked, including in the face, threatened with death, had a gun held to their heads, and had their equipment taken away and smashed.”
“While being beaten, they were told: ‘You have been warned. Get out of here and don’t write anything,’” Memorial said in a statement on Telegram.
Despite being stabbed in the leg, Nemov still appeared at the court hearing on Tuesday, where his client Musayeva was sentenced to 5 and a half years in a penal colony.
Unusually, a number of prominent officials, state TV pundits and others who generally ignore similar attacks on journalists called for an investigation, pointing to a culture of general lawlessness in Chechnya.
Dmitri Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson said that President Putin had been informed about the assault and called it a “very serious attack that requires rather energetic measures.”
Yet Milashina had been threatened for years by Kadyrov and other members of the Chechen government close to him. In 2020, Kadyrov appeared to threaten her directly, saying on Instagram in response to an article about the republic’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic: “If you want us to commit a crime and become criminals, then say so. One will take on this burden of responsibility and will be punished according to the law. He’ll do his time in jail and get out.”..
The two most famous with those names were WW II carriers -- and both were lost in Pacific campaigns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hornet_(CV-8)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)
(The Wasp served in the Alantic and Mediterranean, before being transferred to the Pacific.)
Jesus F C
"Theodore Dalrymple
Psychiatry’s Bad Reasons
A horrible case in France demonstrates how often professional opinion is prone to rationalization."
https://www.city-journal.org/article/psychiatrys-bad-reasons
Clearly a big loss for the Nationalists.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-gutted-decision-snp-30387418
Happy 4th to you, Jim.
Two hundred and forty-seven years after 1776 . . . and the Colonials are STILL revolting!!!!
The blue wall polling is key here. Today points to high labour votes in constituencies the Lib Dem’s could have won without much targeting, if the Lib Dem’s squeezed labour to go beyond the Tory total.
We are agreed, if we see the Tory’s pull away from labour in the blue wall, this could be disaster for the Tories if its labour vote haemorrhaging to libdems? 8 more off labour in blue wall all added to libdems could see libdems top 50 on expense of the Tories.
But we are not seeing this in national or blue wall polling. Labour vote remains too high to hurt the conservatives, and Libdem vote too low, when at this stage the Lab and green voters must know they will vote lidbdem at the general election to hurt the Tories, why are they not reporting this to pollsters?
At this stage you appear correct HY, Lab and green tactical switch to libdem to get the Tory’s out is not being picked up in any polling.
*shakes head* No can do boss, too low.
On the other hand, USN could have commissioned the "USS Woodcock".
Edit - certain my uncle (WW2 Navy vet) would have proudly served aboard "USS American Shag"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Blean_(L47)
I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
Happy 2023-07-04. As is traditional on your independence day, please note that you do have the option to rejoin the United Kingdom free of charge. We can offer a better system of government and all the rain you can eat. This offer will expire at 23:59 tonight (BST) so don't delay!
We have our fireworks in November. Fireworks in early July at 53 degrees north need to wait until about 11pm to be visible. But I suppose at your balmy latitudes this is less of an issue. What time does it get dark where you are?
There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
(In the past, there was a group of young ladies from a store that sold bikinis. They looked both fit and patriotic.)
It’s like compound interest, but in a good way!
The Kittywitch could have been the sister ship of the USS Kittiwake.
There has been a recent increase of about 2% in the Lib Dem national share so maybe that is it.
The article reads like Ganesh is making a clever argument that he doesn't really believe (quite a lot of his articles read like this TBH).
Leaked Documents Reveal Hungary’s Emerging Role as a European Hub for Chinese Chemicals
https://vsquare.org/leaked-documents-reveal-hungarys-emerging-role-as-a-european-hub-for-chinese-chemicals/
Just embarrassing
In any event, the Tory record on taxation is hardly going to attract voters worried about it.
He's too poor:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66097039
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
CDU/CSU: 28% (-1)
AfD: 20% (+1)
SPD: 17% (-1)
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen: 14% (-1)
FDP: 7%
Die Linke: 4%"
https://twitter.com/polit_pro/status/1676142508403834881
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2023.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nigel-farage-s-bank-accounts-were-closed-because-of-a-lack-of-money-not-brexit/ar-AA1dpJrh?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=211c1e642fe34359be6eac67d7d26fbc&ei=17
https://community.hmrc.gov.uk/customerforums/pt/097f17c5-77af-ed11-9ac4-00155d975688
Edit: this is one of the NSI bonds in question (one that is taxable). "Is the interest taxable?
Yes, in the tax year your Bond matures"
https://www.nsandi.com/products/guaranteed-growth-bonds
Candidates also must satisfy a fundraising requirement, having a minimum of 40,000 unique donors and at least 200 unique donors each from 20 or more states or territories."
The Hill
Americans and Europeans: you need to use BOILING water for the little cup of brown joy.
Footnote:
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Bryant: "Do you think the MPs should apologise?"
Sunak: "I haven't gone through the report yet"
B: "You haven't... read the report?"
S: "Not from cover to cover"
B: "It's 3 pages long..."
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1676235167038316549