Tim Montgomery: "If I lived in Clacton I would definitely vote for Farage".
"He speaks the language of Tory activists"
Tim should know better than to treat Tory activists as if they are a homogenous bloc. Doubtless some Tories go weak at the knees for Farage but far more have a visceral loathing for him.
I really doubt that. And you’re not a Tory any more
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
That'll be why folk are literally beating down the door to work here. Come on. Come work in alternative internal provision in a special school. There's plenty of jobs. And you know it's a piece of piss. Why aren't you doing it then?
Baffling that not only did Rishi Sunak choose to skip a meeting of world leaders to do a TV interview, not only did he appear to abandon British veterans to do a TV interview....
...the interview isn't even going to be broadcast for another week.
The Tory campaign is rattled, that the main election narrative is now about their constant lying.
How is Sunak so crap? Is it the wealth that insulates him from reality?
It could be that he’s deliberately trying to get the Tories massacred.
Or it could be that he does not feel personally involved with D Day. How many members of his family were killed at Dunkirk? Or landed in Normandy Or were killed in the Blitz?
The same as mine? Being zero?
In my case it was one, one and two. So perhaps the end of the Second World War means a bit more to me than it does to you and Richi? And perhaps to many many more.....
Arguably there are many out there for who the myths of WW2 are part of their national psyche? Brought up on heroic films (The longest day, the Dambusters), glorious comics, basking in being on the right side of history (no doubt defeating Naziism is a just war), the idea that Britain stood alone in 1940 (not really true - the Empire was steadfast too, and Canada went above and beyond - every Canadian soldier was a volunteer who did not need to be there). There is a rich and deep historiography of how the British think about WW2 ( and also to compare with sentiment around WW1 - arguably an equally just war - see Brest-Litovsk for how the Germans would have settled if they had won). It’s also interesting how much is made of D-Day, yet little of invading Italy. We had been fighting the Germans in Europe since the autumn of 1943. Al Murray makes the point that the standard story of WW2 for the British is phoney warm Dunkirk, D-Day, Arnhem and then VE Day. Certain events have become the focus, yet it was just as grim to die in the winter mud in January 1945 as on a beach on 6th June.
And even less of the campaigns in SE Asia.
Hmmmmmm Not sure... I had an uncle who was out in Burma. It affected him considerably. And I sometimes wonder if my father took part in the liberation of the extermination camps. He never said, of course. But some British soldiers certainly did.
My grandad was in Burma with the Chindits (and before that, Dunkirk). Never said a word about the violence. Focused on the beauty of the jungle and its wildlife, as well as the people. Woke up in a sweat, screaming, frequently until he died in his 90s (my other grandad was relatively lucky, and RAF ground crew).
We are all lucky to have lived in relative peace because of them. I do think of their generation on days like today.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Quite right. Those lazy sods in the NHS had a particularly easy time during Covid. They probably got furlough on top of their huge salaries.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
Tim Montgomery: "If I lived in Clacton I would definitely vote for Farage".
"He speaks the language of Tory activists"
Tim should know better than to treat Tory activists as if they are a homogenous bloc. Doubtless some Tories go weak at the knees for Farage but far more have a visceral loathing for him.
I really doubt that. And you’re not a Tory any more
I’m not a party member any more, politically I’m where I’ve always been it’s just that the party that used to cover my political positions no longer effectively does, if at all.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret · 9m Have No 10 given an explanation for Sunak leaving D Day events early? And can you imagine the media hue and cry if a Labour PM had done so?
I've given up asking scott if he can paste the twitter link in to posts. But... is this just endemic now? Twitter/X references are of zero use these days unless you link to a specific post. Otherwise it might as well be '@joebiden MARS INVADES! BRACE'.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
How is Sunak so crap? Is it the wealth that insulates him from reality?
It could be that he’s deliberately trying to get the Tories massacred.
Or it could be that he does not feel personally involved with D Day. How many members of his family were killed at Dunkirk? Or landed in Normandy Or were killed in the Blitz?
The same as mine? Being zero?
In my case it was one, one and two. So perhaps the end of the Second World War means a bit more to me than it does to you and Richi? And perhaps to many many more.....
You presume it doesn't mean much to me, and I think that's the point here - you're extrapolating Rishi's private feelings based on, really, nothing at all. If he had stayed longer would it have meant he did feel personally involved with D Day? It wouldn't have been taken as evidence one way or the other.
14 years.....more like forever. Every government says they will cut down on it and raise mega billions and they never really do. Same as efficiency saving in head count of whitehall, never happens.
How is Sunak so crap? Is it the wealth that insulates him from reality?
It could be that he’s deliberately trying to get the Tories massacred.
Or it could be that he does not feel personally involved with D Day. How many members of his family were killed at Dunkirk? Or landed in Normandy Or were killed in the Blitz?
The same as mine? Being zero?
In my case it was one, one and two. So perhaps the end of the Second World War means a bit more to me than it does to you and Richi? And perhaps to many many more.....
Arguably there are many out there for who the myths of WW2 are part of their national psyche? Brought up on heroic films (The longest day, the Dambusters), glorious comics, basking in being on the right side of history (no doubt defeating Naziism is a just war), the idea that Britain stood alone in 1940 (not really true - the Empire was steadfast too, and Canada went above and beyond - every Canadian soldier was a volunteer who did not need to be there). There is a rich and deep historiography of how the British think about WW2 ( and also to compare with sentiment around WW1 - arguably an equally just war - see Brest-Litovsk for how the Germans would have settled if they had won). It’s also interesting how much is made of D-Day, yet little of invading Italy. We had been fighting the Germans in Europe since the autumn of 1943. Al Murray makes the point that the standard story of WW2 for the British is phoney warm Dunkirk, D-Day, Arnhem and then VE Day. Certain events have become the focus, yet it was just as grim to die in the winter mud in January 1945 as on a beach on 6th June.
And even less of the campaigns in SE Asia.
Hmmmmmm Not sure... I had an uncle who was out in Burma. It affected him considerably. And I sometimes wonder if my father took part in the liberation of the extermination camps. He never said, of course. But some British soldiers certainly did.
My grandad was in Burma with the Chindits (and before that, Dunkirk). Never said a word about the violence. Focused on the beauty of the jungle and its wildlife, as well as the people. Woke up in a sweat, screaming, frequently until he died in his 90s (my other grandad was relatively lucky, and RAF ground crew).
We are all lucky to have lived in relative peace because of them. I do think of their generation on days like today.
One interesting feature of the way the Allies fought (steel not flesh) is the relatively few troops, airmen etc on the front line. For instance it took seven men to fly a Lancaster, but far more than that to keep the planes flying. Similarly many worked in the ‘tail’ of the army to ensure the front line was kept supplied. We don’t hear much about their war, as it perhaps lacks the ‘glamour/terror’ of the front line, yet they also served. Covid brought the country together, for a time, and you imagine the war did too.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
It isn't even about spending. There seem little in the way of ideas of how to get more out of things, do things differently that might be better.
Blair had a whole range of ideas, as did Cameron (and they came in knowing they had to implement austerity).
Labour offering is same as Tories plans (pre whatever we call the campaign), plus we bring back ASBOs, PFI and let private sector running of trains not be renewed (which is already happening).
Baffling that not only did Rishi Sunak choose to skip a meeting of world leaders to do a TV interview, not only did he appear to abandon British veterans to do a TV interview....
...the interview isn't even going to be broadcast for another week.
Maybe it's the same flaw that he displayed when he walked out to call the election in the rain. He just sticks to his schedule and can't adjust in the moment to consider how things look.
I rather suspect that he has no idea how things look.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret · 9m Have No 10 given an explanation for Sunak leaving D Day events early? And can you imagine the media hue and cry if a Labour PM had done so?
That was my thought... the Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph, Times would all be leading on it. And then all the news broadcasters would feel compelled to too.
My missus has this theory that Sunak is deliberately trying to lose the election by as wide a margin as possible. It sounds mad, until you remember the rain announcement, the fighty Excel security guard, the 2k lie and now this.
I think he's been poor, but really it is just that he and the party are in such a poor state every interpretable moment is coming down negatively against them.
The long-range bombers went up earlier, possible that the missiles will be fired with routing that avoids the air defences identified by the drone attacks. This is one reason why Ukraine have been working hard on having lower-tech defences to combat the drones, as it avoids having to give away the location of the missile defences.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
I agree with you on this, however I think there is space for some organisational improvements (e.g. binning some of the inefficient internal market rubbish in the NHS, and centralisation and harmonisation across public services).
But that will only get you so far, and this time there really is no money left. Even more so when you consider what’s it going to cost to bail out local government.
How is Sunak so crap? Is it the wealth that insulates him from reality?
It could be that he’s deliberately trying to get the Tories massacred.
Or it could be that he does not feel personally involved with D Day. How many members of his family were killed at Dunkirk? Or landed in Normandy Or were killed in the Blitz?
The same as mine? Being zero?
In my case it was one, one and two. So perhaps the end of the Second World War means a bit more to me than it does to you and Richi? And perhaps to many many more.....
You presume it doesn't mean much to me, and I think that's the point here - you're extrapolating Rishi's private feelings based on, really, nothing at all. If he had stayed longer would it have meant he did feel personally involved with D Day? It wouldn't have been taken as evidence one way or the other.
I think the wider point is why is the Loto there, Biden, Macron etc but not the UK PM? The answer seems to be that he went to ITV Studios instead to tell a journalist he’s not a liar
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
Newsnight a must watch. Tim Montgomerie finds Sunak's behaviour disgusting.
Montgomerie is always presented as the face that presents general Tory party membership, but for donkeys years now he seems to hate the Tory Party. Its a bit like Dan Hodges for Labour.
How is Sunak so crap? Is it the wealth that insulates him from reality?
It could be that he’s deliberately trying to get the Tories massacred.
Or it could be that he does not feel personally involved with D Day. How many members of his family were killed at Dunkirk? Or landed in Normandy Or were killed in the Blitz?
The same as mine? Being zero?
In my case it was one, one and two. So perhaps the end of the Second World War means a bit more to me than it does to you and Richi? And perhaps to many many more.....
Arguably there are many out there for who the myths of WW2 are part of their national psyche? Brought up on heroic films (The longest day, the Dambusters), glorious comics, basking in being on the right side of history (no doubt defeating Naziism is a just war), the idea that Britain stood alone in 1940 (not really true - the Empire was steadfast too, and Canada went above and beyond - every Canadian soldier was a volunteer who did not need to be there). There is a rich and deep historiography of how the British think about WW2 ( and also to compare with sentiment around WW1 - arguably an equally just war - see Brest-Litovsk for how the Germans would have settled if they had won). It’s also interesting how much is made of D-Day, yet little of invading Italy. We had been fighting the Germans in Europe since the autumn of 1943. Al Murray makes the point that the standard story of WW2 for the British is phoney warm Dunkirk, D-Day, Arnhem and then VE Day. Certain events have become the focus, yet it was just as grim to die in the winter mud in January 1945 as on a beach on 6th June.
And even less of the campaigns in SE Asia.
Hmmmmmm Not sure... I had an uncle who was out in Burma. It affected him considerably. And I sometimes wonder if my father took part in the liberation of the extermination camps. He never said, of course. But some British soldiers certainly did.
My grandad was in Burma with the Chindits (and before that, Dunkirk). Never said a word about the violence. Focused on the beauty of the jungle and its wildlife, as well as the people. Woke up in a sweat, screaming, frequently until he died in his 90s (my other grandad was relatively lucky, and RAF ground crew).
We are all lucky to have lived in relative peace because of them. I do think of their generation on days like today.
One interesting feature of the way the Allies fought (steel not flesh) is the relatively few troops, airmen etc on the front line. For instance it took seven men to fly a Lancaster, but far more than that to keep the planes flying. Similarly many worked in the ‘tail’ of the army to ensure the front line was kept supplied. We don’t hear much about their war, as it perhaps lacks the ‘glamour/terror’ of the front line, yet they also served. Covid brought the country together, for a time, and you imagine the war did too.
It did.
My Grandfather was in a reserved occupation at the Rolls Royce factory in Hillingdon making aero engines. There were barrage balloons in the housing estate and the kids were evacuated
I'm sure I've simply lost my way in the game of 4D Chess I'm currently playing, but it strikes me that Labour might be happy for the £2k figure to stick in the news for a bit.
We all know either party is going to need to raise taxes after the election. Labour can't say that they will do this right now, but if they amplify the Tories saying it (and persuade the country that the Tories are liars at the same time) it might mean the backlash from the post - election budget is a bit less brutal.
How is Sunak so crap? Is it the wealth that insulates him from reality?
It could be that he’s deliberately trying to get the Tories massacred.
Or it could be that he does not feel personally involved with D Day. How many members of his family were killed at Dunkirk? Or landed in Normandy Or were killed in the Blitz?
The same as mine? Being zero?
In my case it was one, one and two. So perhaps the end of the Second World War means a bit more to me than it does to you and Richi? And perhaps to many many more.....
Arguably there are many out there for who the myths of WW2 are part of their national psyche? Brought up on heroic films (The longest day, the Dambusters), glorious comics, basking in being on the right side of history (no doubt defeating Naziism is a just war), the idea that Britain stood alone in 1940 (not really true - the Empire was steadfast too, and Canada went above and beyond - every Canadian soldier was a volunteer who did not need to be there). There is a rich and deep historiography of how the British think about WW2 ( and also to compare with sentiment around WW1 - arguably an equally just war - see Brest-Litovsk for how the Germans would have settled if they had won). It’s also interesting how much is made of D-Day, yet little of invading Italy. We had been fighting the Germans in Europe since the autumn of 1943. Al Murray makes the point that the standard story of WW2 for the British is phoney warm Dunkirk, D-Day, Arnhem and then VE Day. Certain events have become the focus, yet it was just as grim to die in the winter mud in January 1945 as on a beach on 6th June.
And even less of the campaigns in SE Asia.
Hmmmmmm Not sure... I had an uncle who was out in Burma. It affected him considerably. And I sometimes wonder if my father took part in the liberation of the extermination camps. He never said, of course. But some British soldiers certainly did.
My grandad was in Burma with the Chindits (and before that, Dunkirk). Never said a word about the violence. Focused on the beauty of the jungle and its wildlife, as well as the people. Woke up in a sweat, screaming, frequently until he died in his 90s (my other grandad was relatively lucky, and RAF ground crew).
We are all lucky to have lived in relative peace because of them. I do think of their generation on days like today.
One interesting feature of the way the Allies fought (steel not flesh) is the relatively few troops, airmen etc on the front line. For instance it took seven men to fly a Lancaster, but far more than that to keep the planes flying. Similarly many worked in the ‘tail’ of the army to ensure the front line was kept supplied. We don’t hear much about their war, as it perhaps lacks the ‘glamour/terror’ of the front line, yet they also served. Covid brought the country together, for a time, and you imagine the war did too.
Yes, too many ignore logistics, which is vital. And we see it all over - e.g. hospitals need more than surgeons and the police need more than response cars.
Baffling that not only did Rishi Sunak choose to skip a meeting of world leaders to do a TV interview, not only did he appear to abandon British veterans to do a TV interview....
...the interview isn't even going to be broadcast for another week.
IF you put something like that, and etc., into a novel, you'd be accused (rightly) of lack of verisimilitude.
Baffling that not only did Rishi Sunak choose to skip a meeting of world leaders to do a TV interview, not only did he appear to abandon British veterans to do a TV interview....
...the interview isn't even going to be broadcast for another week.
Maybe it's the same flaw that he displayed when he walked out to call the election in the rain. He just sticks to his schedule and can't adjust in the moment to consider how things look.
I rather suspect that he has no idea how things look.
Interestingly Mrs May came under a lot of flak for being robotic but actually it’s Sunak I find more that way. May clearly was uncomfortable in awkward/challenging situations and reverted to repetition and stiltedness, but in a way that actually made her more human. She felt something, and she understood it was awkward, and behaved accordingly by going into coping mechanisms. When she was scripted and she felt more comfortable, she was noticeably better presentationally.
Sunak just seems to be something an AI “make me a politician” programme spat out.
The fact they can receive gifts at all seems very suss to me. The whole point of being a judge, especially the highest court in the land, is to make rulings without fear or favour.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
We keep recruiting teachers ( we do not do teaching). It worries me how many I see applying for jobs with us. It can’t be good for schools.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
For the millionth time, student loan debt is not really debt, its a graduate tax. Unless you are going to go and earn a shit tonne of money within a few years of leaving uni, you are on the graduate tax plan for the rest of your working life regardless of if it was £40k,50k,60k,100k etc. It literally makes bugger all difference if you are only ever going earn in the £10k's how much that the number of the owned column is.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
My colleague and best mate at work was assaulted again on Wednesday. I observed first thing that the child was in a worse fettle than I'd ever seen in 2 years of working with her. We immediately asked for extra support. None was available. She was alone with her to morning break. At break we talked. My friend said that she'd been told by the child that she desperately wanted someone else to be with her as my friend was "too nice to hurt." No one was available to switch up with her, let alone go 2 to 1. So now she's off work. And is on half pay due to too many days off from previous assaults. She's on £21k pro rata on full salary. Fuck off and tell me we've a cushy job.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
Exactly. That's the biggest difference between the NHS and Australia (and the patients are less likely to be arseholes, apparently).
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
You could be the Head of Cyber Security at the Treasury for a princely sum of about £55,000. Enough for a box room in Clapham!
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
Have to say Labour comms has been impressive this election. The Tories look like they tried to get the intern to do it but had to settle for the interns kid brother.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
We keep recruiting teachers ( we do not do teaching). It worries me how many I see applying for jobs with us. It can’t be good for schools.
Older teachers are less likely to leave, once they get up the pay scale (if you're outside London/South East), you can afford a reasonable standard of living if you're a couple.
If you're 24, seeing your friends working in much less stressful office jobs, earning more and not being treated like shit, you're going to lose your idealism quite quickly.
I work somewhere where staff are very well treated, comparatively, and has a deserved rep as an excellent employer. Really struggling to recruit staff in most subjects and a lot of younger staff leaving the profession. Heard of two staff emigrating today, leaving this summer.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Its also visible. People like seeming new stuff going up. New schools, hospitals, roads in good shape. Obviously Brown did all that by bumping it all off the books. I presume we are having a return to that approach, with claims of borrowing to invest isn't really borrowing.
The Tories couldn't even spunk the levelling up money properly. So much wastage on things that won't actually do anything. I found out the other week where a significant amount of money went and it isn't what anybody would think of is what levelling up was for. It wasn't some party loyalist backhander or anything, just totally not what anybody would think of as levelling up.
Mike Lynch, a British software mogul who was once one of his country’s most celebrated chief executives, was acquitted of fraud on Thursday in San Francisco federal court, clearing him of charges that he had led one of the biggest frauds in the technology industry.
A jury found him not guilty of falsely inflating revenue at Autonomy, the company he founded and led, when he sold it to Hewlett-Packard for $11 billion in 2011.
Mike Lynch, a British software mogul who was once one of his country’s most celebrated chief executives, was acquitted of fraud on Thursday in San Francisco federal court, clearing him of charges that he had led one of the biggest frauds in the technology industry.
A jury found him not guilty of falsely inflating revenue at Autonomy, the company he founded and led, when he sold it to Hewlett-Packard for $11 billion in 2011.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
We keep recruiting teachers ( we do not do teaching). It worries me how many I see applying for jobs with us. It can’t be good for schools.
Older teachers are less likely to leave, once they get up the pay scale (if you're outside London/South East), you can afford a reasonable standard of living if you're a couple.
If you're 24, seeing your friends working in much less stressful office jobs, earning more and not being treated like shit, you're going to lose your idealism quite quickly.
I work somewhere where staff are very well treated, comparatively, and has a deserved rep as an excellent employer. Really struggling to recruit staff in most subjects and a lot of younger staff leaving the profession. Heard of two staff emigrating today, leaving this summer.
It goes back to the point made above doesn’t it? Some of it is the money but conditions matter. Time to think, and plan, and just grab a coffee. All that is a given, even in quite high tempo, high stress, office jobs. You also have the freedom to plan your own day, which teachers and clinical staff clearly can’t have.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
We keep recruiting teachers ( we do not do teaching). It worries me how many I see applying for jobs with us. It can’t be good for schools.
Older teachers are less likely to leave, once they get up the pay scale (if you're outside London/South East), you can afford a reasonable standard of living if you're a couple.
If you're 24, seeing your friends working in much less stressful office jobs, earning more and not being treated like shit, you're going to lose your idealism quite quickly.
I work somewhere where staff are very well treated, comparatively, and has a deserved rep as an excellent employer. Really struggling to recruit staff in most subjects and a lot of younger staff leaving the profession. Heard of two staff emigrating today, leaving this summer.
It goes back to the point made above doesn’t it? Some of it is the money but conditions matter. Time to think, and plan, and just grab a coffee. All that is a given, even in quite high tempo, high stress, office jobs. You also have the freedom to plan your own day, which teachers and clinical staff clearly can’t have.
We have also said loads of time on here, you do the loan forgiven approach for key jobs. Its basically a few % payrise without being a payrise / eating into school budget and I bet if you costed it out it wouldn't even cost the government any money in the long run as they individual won't pay back the whole loan.
Have to say Labour comms has been impressive this election. The Tories look like they tried to get the intern to do it but had to settle for the interns kid brother.
Back in my web design days there was an expression after failing to win a pitch to a client - "yeh, the usual, the business owner said his nephew can do a few webpages for him."
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Fingers crossed they adopt it, but it's too much of an open goal not to, especially with the likely large majority and large number of young candidates selected by Labour.
I've just covered the immediate effects - renters (who are solidly Labour) may see reductions in rent - which will bolster support for Labour (and increase alcohol duty receipts...) and councils need to pay less in housing benefit are two other big benefits.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Its also visible. People like seeming new stuff going up. New schools, hospitals, roads in good shape. Obviously Brown did all that by bumping it all off the books. I presume we are having a return to that approach, with claims of borrowing to invest isn't really borrowing.
The Tories couldn't even spunk the levelling up money properly. So much wastage on things that won't actually do anything. I found out the other week where a significant amount of money went and it isn't what anybody would think of is what levelling up was for. It wasn't some party loyalist backhander or anything, just totally not what anybody would think of as levelling up.
The issue is that, increasingly, you can’t do it “off the books”. The old PFI wheeze has been got rid of in accounting changes out of the OECD, and the ONS is live to new wheezes.
PFI can make sense if you use it for genuine risk transfer, and you negotiate that well; but you should never use it to get borrowing “off the books”. Quite quickly it will be recategorised as public borrowing anyway these days, and all you’ve done is paid more than the Gilt rate for no gain.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Fingers crossed they adopt it, but it's too much of an open goal not to, especially with the likely large majority and large number of young candidates selected by Labour.
I've just covered the immediate effects - renters (who are solidly Labour) may see reductions in rent - which will bolster support for Labour (and increase alcohol duty receipts...) and councils need to pay less in housing benefit are two other big benefits.
It can be tricky, but making it attractive to redevelop high street buildings into residential seems like one approach. The high street is never coming back the way it was, you can throw all the money you like but internet shopping is here to stay and young people want to live in town so they can socialise within walking distance.
My colleague and best mate at work was assaulted again on Wednesday. I observed first thing that the child was in a worse fettle than I'd ever seen in 2 years of working with her. We immediately asked for extra support. None was available. She was alone with her to morning break. At break we talked. My friend said that she'd been told by the child that she desperately wanted someone else to be with her as my friend was "too nice to hurt." No one was available to switch up with her, let alone go 2 to 1. So now she's off work. And is on half pay due to too many days off from previous assaults. She's on £21k pro rata on full salary. Fuck off and tell me we've a cushy job.
"We asked for backup. None was available" is one of the epitaphs for this bottom-of-the-well government.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Its also visible. People like seeming new stuff going up. New schools, hospitals, roads in good shape. Obviously Brown did all that by bumping it all off the books. I presume we are having a return to that approach, with claims of borrowing to invest isn't really borrowing.
The Tories couldn't even spunk the levelling up money properly. So much wastage on things that won't actually do anything. I found out the other week where a significant amount of money went and it isn't what anybody would think of is what levelling up was for. It wasn't some party loyalist backhander or anything, just totally not what anybody would think of as levelling up.
The issue is that, increasingly, you can’t do it “off the books”. The old PFI wheeze has been got rid of in accounting changes out of the OECD, and the ONS is live to new wheezes.
PFI can make sense if you use it for genuine risk transfer, and you negotiate that well; but you should never use it to get borrowing “off the books”. Quite quickly it will be recategorised as public borrowing anyway these days, and all you’ve done is paid more than the Gilt rate for no gain.
I wonder how the Great British Wealth Fund or whatever it will be called will be classified, but that is PFI in all but name.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
For the millionth time, student loan debt is not really debt, its a graduate tax. Unless you are going to go and earn a shit tonne of money within a few years of leaving uni, you are on the graduate tax plan for the rest of your working life regardless of if it was £40k,50k,60k,100k etc. It literally makes bugger all difference if you are only ever going earn in the £10k's how much that the number of the owned column is.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
But only if you took on that debt in the first place.
It's a tax - but only on those who didn't have parents rich enough to pay for your degree. Like private schools and housing, it's another way to entrench intergenerational inequality.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
We keep recruiting teachers ( we do not do teaching). It worries me how many I see applying for jobs with us. It can’t be good for schools.
Older teachers are less likely to leave, once they get up the pay scale (if you're outside London/South East), you can afford a reasonable standard of living if you're a couple.
If you're 24, seeing your friends working in much less stressful office jobs, earning more and not being treated like shit, you're going to lose your idealism quite quickly.
I work somewhere where staff are very well treated, comparatively, and has a deserved rep as an excellent employer. Really struggling to recruit staff in most subjects and a lot of younger staff leaving the profession. Heard of two staff emigrating today, leaving this summer.
It goes back to the point made above doesn’t it? Some of it is the money but conditions matter. Time to think, and plan, and just grab a coffee. All that is a given, even in quite high tempo, high stress, office jobs. You also have the freedom to plan your own day, which teachers and clinical staff clearly can’t have.
It's a very little thing. But try to get your central heating fixed or a doctor's appointment. It's all we'll call you back sometime tomorrow. But I can't have my phone switched on. I'm at work. Posting on PB is a sackable offence. The super efficient private sector seems to have solved all that. Maybe that's the reform we need to stop us idling all the time.
Spin down to 118 to 126 conservative seats. I’ve just bought a few more.
More to the point, there's now a Reform bid/offer. 3.25-5.75.
If it were someone else's money I'd hit that bid. As it is I'm not bloody doing that lol, steam rollers and pennies come to mind. And I'm not going long either even though I can see a case for it if anyone believes in cross over - it's far less risky than shorting Tories.
I just hope that we do edge towards crossover so selling it becomes more justifiable.
My SPIN position remains long Labour at 402 with not as much size as I wanted.
Still want to sell Lib Dems at some point too but certainly not here.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
For the millionth time, student loan debt is not really debt, its a graduate tax. Unless you are going to go and earn a shit tonne of money within a few years of leaving uni, you are on the graduate tax plan for the rest of your working life regardless of if it was £40k,50k,60k,100k etc. It literally makes bugger all difference if you are only ever going earn in the £10k's how much that the number of the owned column is.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
But only if you took on that debt in the first place.
It's a tax - but only on those who didn't have parents rich enough to pay for your degree. Like private schools and housing, it's another way to entrench intergenerational inequality.
Also trying the 'it's not a debt' line won't wash with the likes of the Halifax when you apply for a mortgage.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
For the millionth time, student loan debt is not really debt, its a graduate tax. Unless you are going to go and earn a shit tonne of money within a few years of leaving uni, you are on the graduate tax plan for the rest of your working life regardless of if it was £40k,50k,60k,100k etc. It literally makes bugger all difference if you are only ever going earn in the £10k's how much that the number of the owned column is.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
But only if you took on that debt in the first place.
It's a tax - but only on those who didn't have parents rich enough to pay for your degree. Like private schools and housing, it's another way to entrench intergenerational inequality.
This is true to some extent. Although the rich don't do that, its far better to put the £50k towards a property for the little hubert.
My point was that the total level of your student debt should make no difference to your job choice outside of the extreme high end. You shouldn't even think about it. The majority of people are paying that tax for their working life and the vast vast majority for nearly all their working life.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
We keep recruiting teachers ( we do not do teaching). It worries me how many I see applying for jobs with us. It can’t be good for schools.
Older teachers are less likely to leave, once they get up the pay scale (if you're outside London/South East), you can afford a reasonable standard of living if you're a couple.
If you're 24, seeing your friends working in much less stressful office jobs, earning more and not being treated like shit, you're going to lose your idealism quite quickly.
I work somewhere where staff are very well treated, comparatively, and has a deserved rep as an excellent employer. Really struggling to recruit staff in most subjects and a lot of younger staff leaving the profession. Heard of two staff emigrating today, leaving this summer.
It goes back to the point made above doesn’t it? Some of it is the money but conditions matter. Time to think, and plan, and just grab a coffee. All that is a given, even in quite high tempo, high stress, office jobs. You also have the freedom to plan your own day, which teachers and clinical staff clearly can’t have.
It's a very little thing. But try to get your central heating fixed or a doctor's appointment. It's all we'll call you back sometime tomorrow. But I can't have my phone switched on. I'm at work. Posting on PB is a sackable offence. The super efficient private sector seems to have solved all that. Maybe that's the reform we need to stop us idling all the time.
I'm so old that I remember my mother - a teacher all her life - talking about free periods.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Its also visible. People like seeming new stuff going up. New schools, hospitals, roads in good shape. Obviously Brown did all that by bumping it all off the books. I presume we are having a return to that approach, with claims of borrowing to invest isn't really borrowing.
The Tories couldn't even spunk the levelling up money properly. So much wastage on things that won't actually do anything. I found out the other week where a significant amount of money went and it isn't what anybody would think of is what levelling up was for. It wasn't some party loyalist backhander or anything, just totally not what anybody would think of as levelling up.
The issue is that, increasingly, you can’t do it “off the books”. The old PFI wheeze has been got rid of in accounting changes out of the OECD, and the ONS is live to new wheezes.
PFI can make sense if you use it for genuine risk transfer, and you negotiate that well; but you should never use it to get borrowing “off the books”. Quite quickly it will be recategorised as public borrowing anyway these days, and all you’ve done is paid more than the Gilt rate for no gain.
I wonder how the Great British Wealth Fund or whatever it will be called will be classified, but that is PFI in all but name.
I have wondered about that. The only way to be off balance sheet these days is for Government to not have any control of the SPV. But if you’re doing anything public facing, that’s bloody dangerous, and super risky for politicians.
Mike Lynch, a British software mogul who was once one of his country’s most celebrated chief executives, was acquitted of fraud on Thursday in San Francisco federal court, clearing him of charges that he had led one of the biggest frauds in the technology industry.
A jury found him not guilty of falsely inflating revenue at Autonomy, the company he founded and led, when he sold it to Hewlett-Packard for $11 billion in 2011.
First data coming in about the likely impact of the Welsh 20mph speed limit in residential areas.
The casualties on 20 and 30mph roads down by 29%. Difficult to split down as so many have changed category between the two. Also worth noting that that does not identify categories of casualty.
It's nice to have some numbers during the Election campaign, though only one quarter's worth.
The number of people injured on 20 and 30mph roads in Wales fell by almost a third in the final quarter of last year, new data published by the Welsh government shows.
The figures show there were 463 casualties on such roads between October and December, down from 681 in the same period a year earlier.
The Welsh Labour government has credited the introduction of default 20mph default speed limits, which took effect last September, but Conservatives said more data was needed. Plaid Cymru, which supported the policy, said the figures were "encouraging".
Labour has since committed to a review of the new law.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
For the millionth time, student loan debt is not really debt, its a graduate tax. Unless you are going to go and earn a shit tonne of money within a few years of leaving uni, you are on the graduate tax plan for the rest of your working life regardless of if it was £40k,50k,60k,100k etc. It literally makes bugger all difference if you are only ever going earn in the £10k's how much that the number of the owned column is.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
But only if you took on that debt in the first place.
It's a tax - but only on those who didn't have parents rich enough to pay for your degree. Like private schools and housing, it's another way to entrench intergenerational inequality.
Also trying the 'it's not a debt' line won't wash with the likes of the Halifax when you apply for a mortgage.
It makes no difference to your mortgage application. It only effects it in affordability criteria in that they is a chunk of your wage you won't see, but you are paying a capped % of your income, so the total amount you owe is irrelevant. It is what is your wage, what is the interest rate on student loans, what is mortgage interest rate.
Where you can get screwed if you move abroad, but actually the SLC has a terrible record of recovering debt from those not in the country. If you never intend to return for many years, it is very hard for them to do anything.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
It needs to be the right sort of building. Council houses and 1 abd 2 bedroom starter homes that people can actually afford to buy. Stop building all those 4 and 5 bedroom executive estates that don't help the people at the bottom.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
It needs to be the right sort of building. Council houses and 1 abd 2 bedroom starter homes that people can actually afford to buy. Stop building all those 4 and 5 bedroom executive estates that don't help the people at the bottom.
They do indirectly because they soak up demand from buyers who would otherwise bid up the price of houses lower down the chain.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
For the millionth time, student loan debt is not really debt, its a graduate tax. Unless you are going to go and earn a shit tonne of money within a few years of leaving uni, you are on the graduate tax plan for the rest of your working life regardless of if it was £40k,50k,60k,100k etc. It literally makes bugger all difference if you are only ever going earn in the £10k's how much that the number of the owned column is.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
But only if you took on that debt in the first place.
It's a tax - but only on those who didn't have parents rich enough to pay for your degree. Like private schools and housing, it's another way to entrench intergenerational inequality.
Also trying the 'it's not a debt' line won't wash with the likes of the Halifax when you apply for a mortgage.
It makes no difference to your mortgage application. It only effects it in affordability, but you are paying a capped % of your income, so the total amount is irrelevant.
It impacts the amount you may borrow, as the bank/building society look carefully at all salary deductions and restrict the loan amount accordingly.
The recent changes to the repayment schedules have made the situation a great deal worse for those on later plans e.g 4 and 5. If you have postgraduate debt on top of that, it is worse,
It is very easy to be in your 40s/50s and not comprehend how dire things are for young people, but it just isn't realistic.
First data coming in about the likely impact of the Welsh 20mph speed limit in residential areas.
The casualties on 20 and 30mph roads down by 29%. Difficult to split down as so many have changed category between the two. Also worth noting that that does not identify categories of casualty.
It's nice to have some numbers during the Election campaign, though only one quarter's worth.
The number of people injured on 20 and 30mph roads in Wales fell by almost a third in the final quarter of last year, new data published by the Welsh government shows.
The figures show there were 463 casualties on such roads between October and December, down from 681 in the same period a year earlier.
The Welsh Labour government has credited the introduction of default 20mph default speed limits, which took effect last September, but Conservatives said more data was needed. Plaid Cymru, which supported the policy, said the figures were "encouraging".
Labour has since committed to a review of the new law.
If we limited cars to 5mph on all roads, fatalities would drop to near zero. We don’t do that, because we balance the need to move around more quickly, and so we find a balance - in the past set to about 30mph.
The only meaningful figure here would be deaths vs productivity/embuggerance, and there’s no “right” answer.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
For the millionth time, student loan debt is not really debt, its a graduate tax. Unless you are going to go and earn a shit tonne of money within a few years of leaving uni, you are on the graduate tax plan for the rest of your working life regardless of if it was £40k,50k,60k,100k etc. It literally makes bugger all difference if you are only ever going earn in the £10k's how much that the number of the owned column is.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
But only if you took on that debt in the first place.
It's a tax - but only on those who didn't have parents rich enough to pay for your degree. Like private schools and housing, it's another way to entrench intergenerational inequality.
There are parents from council estates who earnt enough to send their children to private schools, or even children on council estates who got scholarships to private schools.
Right to buy was the biggest expansion in property ownership to working class people this country has seen.
Tuition fees were brought in by Labour originally and expanded by a coalition of LDs and Tories.
The problem is there is no proper market in it, someone who studied sociology at Man Met and became a social worker has the same level of debt as someone who studied economics at Cambridge and became an investment banker. Which is absurd, fees and debt for the former should be less than half those of the latter
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
For the millionth time, student loan debt is not really debt, its a graduate tax. Unless you are going to go and earn a shit tonne of money within a few years of leaving uni, you are on the graduate tax plan for the rest of your working life regardless of if it was £40k,50k,60k,100k etc. It literally makes bugger all difference if you are only ever going earn in the £10k's how much that the number of the owned column is.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
But only if you took on that debt in the first place.
It's a tax - but only on those who didn't have parents rich enough to pay for your degree. Like private schools and housing, it's another way to entrench intergenerational inequality.
Also trying the 'it's not a debt' line won't wash with the likes of the Halifax when you apply for a mortgage.
It makes no difference to your mortgage application. It only effects it in affordability, but you are paying a capped % of your income, so the total amount is irrelevant.
It impacts the amount you may borrow, as the bank/building society look carefully at all salary deductions and restrict the loan amount accordingly.
The recent changes to the repayment schedules have made the situation a great deal worse for those on later plans e.g 4 and 5. If you have postgraduate debt on top of that, it is worse,
It is very easy to be in your 40s/50s and not comprehend how dire things are for young people, but it just isn't realistic.
But for the vast majority of people that amount being deducted will be the same per month regardless of if you owe £50k or £100k. Its a set percentage of your wages above a threshold.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Fingers crossed they adopt it, but it's too much of an open goal not to, especially with the likely large majority and large number of young candidates selected by Labour.
I've just covered the immediate effects - renters (who are solidly Labour) may see reductions in rent - which will bolster support for Labour (and increase alcohol duty receipts...) and councils need to pay less in housing benefit are two other big benefits.
It can be tricky, but making it attractive to redevelop high street buildings into residential seems like one approach. The high street is never coming back the way it was, you can throw all the money you like but internet shopping is here to stay and young people want to live in town so they can socialise within walking distance.
It's already relatively easy and up until September I would have agreed with you. Then I went to Lille. Because buildings are so much cheaper over there (and denser...) commercial properties are much cheaper to rent. The number of niche stores open 4 days a week was ridiculous, probably 80% of those stores would have been DOA in the UK.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
We keep recruiting teachers ( we do not do teaching). It worries me how many I see applying for jobs with us. It can’t be good for schools.
Older teachers are less likely to leave, once they get up the pay scale (if you're outside London/South East), you can afford a reasonable standard of living if you're a couple.
If you're 24, seeing your friends working in much less stressful office jobs, earning more and not being treated like shit, you're going to lose your idealism quite quickly.
I work somewhere where staff are very well treated, comparatively, and has a deserved rep as an excellent employer. Really struggling to recruit staff in most subjects and a lot of younger staff leaving the profession. Heard of two staff emigrating today, leaving this summer.
It goes back to the point made above doesn’t it? Some of it is the money but conditions matter. Time to think, and plan, and just grab a coffee. All that is a given, even in quite high tempo, high stress, office jobs. You also have the freedom to plan your own day, which teachers and clinical staff clearly can’t have.
It's a very little thing. But try to get your central heating fixed or a doctor's appointment. It's all we'll call you back sometime tomorrow. But I can't have my phone switched on. I'm at work. Posting on PB is a sackable offence. The super efficient private sector seems to have solved all that. Maybe that's the reform we need to stop us idling all the time.
I'm so old that I remember my mother - a teacher all her life - talking about free periods.
I've been calculating the PPA taken this academic year. I'm at two and a bit hours in a year. It's all training up, disciplining, counselling and covering for totally unqualified TA's.*
* Some of them, like my friend, are absolutely gold dust Saints who go above and beyond every day. But increasingly the newer supply aren't literate, numerate or even safe. You just have to do their jobs as well. Fucking sick of being told we aren't productive. Just come and do our jobs for a week if you could. Then lecture us.
First data coming in about the likely impact of the Welsh 20mph speed limit in residential areas.
The casualties on 20 and 30mph roads down by 29%. Difficult to split down as so many have changed category between the two. Also worth noting that that does not identify categories of casualty.
It's nice to have some numbers during the Election campaign, though only one quarter's worth.
The number of people injured on 20 and 30mph roads in Wales fell by almost a third in the final quarter of last year, new data published by the Welsh government shows.
The figures show there were 463 casualties on such roads between October and December, down from 681 in the same period a year earlier.
The Welsh Labour government has credited the introduction of default 20mph default speed limits, which took effect last September, but Conservatives said more data was needed. Plaid Cymru, which supported the policy, said the figures were "encouraging".
Labour has since committed to a review of the new law.
If we limited cars to 5mph on all roads, fatalities would drop to near zero. We don’t do that, because we balance the need to move around more quickly, and so we find a balance - in the past set to about 30mph.
The only meaningful figure here would be deaths vs productivity/embuggerance, and there’s no “right” answer.
I agree that reduction to 5mph is a red herring by reductio ad adsurbam. No one is proposing that, and it's really a distraction from the serious argument you suggest - the question is choosing a balance.
Is 20mph is a better balance than 30mph, and where and how extensively should it be used?
I suggest that 30 years of experience with hundreds of 20mph schemes in the UK, and extensive experience abroad, shows that it is a better balance for extensive use in urban environments - such as residential and shopping areas.
On speed of moving around, we need data. I'm sure that will become available.
There are also a mass of subjective factors, such as pleasantness of environment for us all to live in, noise, systematic safety (ie the system we use for H&S applied to the road / street environment) and so on.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
It needs to be the right sort of building. Council houses and 1 abd 2 bedroom starter homes that people can actually afford to buy. Stop building all those 4 and 5 bedroom executive estates that don't help the people at the bottom.
Let the market decide - besides there's lots of evidence that high end property construction filters on average 13 families into every property for each one built. If you build e.g. social rent housing you help 1, maybe 2 or 3 families. Higher end housing cascades down improving the lot of more families.
However overall adopting zoning like NZ is the way to go. After a few years the markets will decide what is needed. Zoning of course needs to be paired with getting rid of the ridiculous nutrient neutrality, bat bullshit and other ridiculous red tape so that new entrants can actually enter the market again.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Fingers crossed they adopt it, but it's too much of an open goal not to, especially with the likely large majority and large number of young candidates selected by Labour.
I've just covered the immediate effects - renters (who are solidly Labour) may see reductions in rent - which will bolster support for Labour (and increase alcohol duty receipts...) and councils need to pay less in housing benefit are two other big benefits.
It can be tricky, but making it attractive to redevelop high street buildings into residential seems like one approach. The high street is never coming back the way it was, you can throw all the money you like but internet shopping is here to stay and young people want to live in town so they can socialise within walking distance.
It's already relatively easy and up until September I would have agreed with you. Then I went to Lille. Because buildings are so much cheaper over there (and denser...) commercial properties are much cheaper to rent. The number of niche stores open 4 days a week was ridiculous, probably 80% of those stores would have been DOA in the UK.
Isn't the problem in the UK not just the actual rent, but the rateable values of the property leads to very high taxes for luxury of just being a shop.
First data coming in about the likely impact of the Welsh 20mph speed limit in residential areas.
The casualties on 20 and 30mph roads down by 29%. Difficult to split down as so many have changed category between the two. Also worth noting that that does not identify categories of casualty.
It's nice to have some numbers during the Election campaign, though only one quarter's worth.
The number of people injured on 20 and 30mph roads in Wales fell by almost a third in the final quarter of last year, new data published by the Welsh government shows.
The figures show there were 463 casualties on such roads between October and December, down from 681 in the same period a year earlier.
The Welsh Labour government has credited the introduction of default 20mph default speed limits, which took effect last September, but Conservatives said more data was needed. Plaid Cymru, which supported the policy, said the figures were "encouraging".
Labour has since committed to a review of the new law.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. It took about 2 minutes to find that road casualties have been falling continuously from a (very high) peak in 2005 and that the trend over the last 2 years is no different to the overall trend of the last 18 years (accepting a trough in 2020 when far fewer people were driving because of covid.)
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
It needs to be the right sort of building. Council houses and 1 abd 2 bedroom starter homes that people can actually afford to buy. Stop building all those 4 and 5 bedroom executive estates that don't help the people at the bottom.
Let the market decide - besides there's lots of evidence that high end property construction filters on average 13 families into every property for each one built. If you build e.g. social rent housing you help 1, maybe 2 or 3 families. Higher end housing cascades down improving the lot of more families.
However overall adopting zoning like NZ is the way to go. After a few years the markets will decide what is needed. Zoning of course needs to be paired with getting rid of the ridiculous nutrient neutrality, bat bullshit and other ridiculous red tape so that new entrants can actually enter the market again.
Bullshit. What the market decides is that when house prices stop rising they stop building houses. The market is broken.
The thing about Sunak's £2k Labour tax allegation is this, and I don't think it's been mentioned enough. The 'lie' is that Sunak intended, during the debate, for everybody to think Labour's alleged tax hike would be £2k per year, rather than £500 a year - i.e. over four years. And the Tories, including Hunt, continue to frame it as £2k rather than £500. £10 a week isn't a great deal; £40 a week is.
Regardless of the fact that the figure is pure conjecture anyway (I expect Labour to raise taxes, obviously), it's this sleight of hand that makes it a 'lie'.
True, however governments do this all the time especially in elections. New Labour often rolled multi year spending commitments up to make them seem more impressive. You get away with it when you’re in the ascendancy and not so much when not. It isn’t so much an issue because it’s dishonest, though it is, it’s an issue because the Tories are in trouble.
Yes, but Labour is lying about tax. Anyone with half a brain knows they are. They will put them up and not just on "the rich". They are too much in hock to the public sector unions not to need the money to pay for way above inflation pay increases for the non-productive sector that makes up most of their base.
A sector where pay rises have been so bad that workers now get 30% less compared than private sextor works when you compare 2010 to now.
No wonder anyone who could get a job in the private sector left leaving just the public spirited and lazy workers behind
Include their pensions, dope. The public sector still gets an easy ride in most cases. Many people in the private sector lost their jobs in Covid and businesses went bust while public sector unions were still bleating about how they deserved more pay.
Sorry, because I suspect we're often reading from the same book, but you're wrong on this one. Public sector pay and conditions have got to a point that organisations simply can't get the staff.
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
While undoubtedly pay is important, equally so are other aspects of working conditions. People want to do a good job and it is very stressful and demoralising to do so with inadequate training, in decrepit buildings, swamped with demands and abused by the government.
The young people coming in are also weighed down with huge student loan debt, one of my recent ECTs had about 60k+ (was from a low income family, so had to borrow the lot). She was brilliant in the classroom. She leaves teaching this summer after just three years in post.
We keep recruiting teachers ( we do not do teaching). It worries me how many I see applying for jobs with us. It can’t be good for schools.
Older teachers are less likely to leave, once they get up the pay scale (if you're outside London/South East), you can afford a reasonable standard of living if you're a couple.
If you're 24, seeing your friends working in much less stressful office jobs, earning more and not being treated like shit, you're going to lose your idealism quite quickly.
I work somewhere where staff are very well treated, comparatively, and has a deserved rep as an excellent employer. Really struggling to recruit staff in most subjects and a lot of younger staff leaving the profession. Heard of two staff emigrating today, leaving this summer.
It goes back to the point made above doesn’t it? Some of it is the money but conditions matter. Time to think, and plan, and just grab a coffee. All that is a given, even in quite high tempo, high stress, office jobs. You also have the freedom to plan your own day, which teachers and clinical staff clearly can’t have.
It's a very little thing. But try to get your central heating fixed or a doctor's appointment. It's all we'll call you back sometime tomorrow. But I can't have my phone switched on. I'm at work. Posting on PB is a sackable offence. The super efficient private sector seems to have solved all that. Maybe that's the reform we need to stop us idling all the time.
I'm so old that I remember my mother - a teacher all her life - talking about free periods.
I've been calculating the PPA taken this academic year. I'm at two and a bit hours in a year. It's all training up, disciplining, counselling and covering for totally unqualified TA's.*
* Some of them, like my friend, are absolutely gold dust Saints who go above and beyond every day. But increasingly the newer supply aren't literate, numerate or even safe. You just have to do their jobs as well. Fucking sick of being told we aren't productive. Just come and do our jobs for a week if you could. Then lecture us.
Doctors will soon be doing the same for PAs by sound of things.
First data coming in about the likely impact of the Welsh 20mph speed limit in residential areas.
The casualties on 20 and 30mph roads down by 29%. Difficult to split down as so many have changed category between the two. Also worth noting that that does not identify categories of casualty.
It's nice to have some numbers during the Election campaign, though only one quarter's worth.
The number of people injured on 20 and 30mph roads in Wales fell by almost a third in the final quarter of last year, new data published by the Welsh government shows.
The figures show there were 463 casualties on such roads between October and December, down from 681 in the same period a year earlier.
The Welsh Labour government has credited the introduction of default 20mph default speed limits, which took effect last September, but Conservatives said more data was needed. Plaid Cymru, which supported the policy, said the figures were "encouraging".
Labour has since committed to a review of the new law.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. It took about 2 minutes to find that road casualties have been falling continuously from a (very high) peak in 2005 and that the trend over the last 2 years is no different to the overall trend of the last 18 years (accepting a trough in 2020 when far fewer people were driving because of covid.)
Its like the classic speed camera stuff. There we got that hilarious situation where the academic who was paid to produce the research to show speed cameras are great, cut accidents, they looked at the numbers and said its regression to the mean i.e. you put a speed camera in a place there was a rise in accidents, now it just returned to the long term average.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Fingers crossed they adopt it, but it's too much of an open goal not to, especially with the likely large majority and large number of young candidates selected by Labour.
I've just covered the immediate effects - renters (who are solidly Labour) may see reductions in rent - which will bolster support for Labour (and increase alcohol duty receipts...) and councils need to pay less in housing benefit are two other big benefits.
It can be tricky, but making it attractive to redevelop high street buildings into residential seems like one approach. The high street is never coming back the way it was, you can throw all the money you like but internet shopping is here to stay and young people want to live in town so they can socialise within walking distance.
It's already relatively easy and up until September I would have agreed with you. Then I went to Lille. Because buildings are so much cheaper over there (and denser...) commercial properties are much cheaper to rent. The number of niche stores open 4 days a week was ridiculous, probably 80% of those stores would have been DOA in the UK.
Isn't the problem in the UK not just the actual rent, but the rateable values of the property leads to very high taxes for luxury of just being a shop.
Potentially - all I know is that rents/cost of running a shop are much higher here, and there's no intrinsic reason we couldn't have high streets like the french if we wanted (I should note it's not just Lille - Provence and Toulouse have also felt incredibly affluent and varied compared to rich places in the UK - they also all have great tram systems that make the cities a breeze to travel through.)
In so many areas (housing, transport, energy, commercial) we'd do very well to just copy France.
* To be paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance. Again.
I look forward to the IFS analysis of the Tory manifesto.
The Tory approaches seems to be following the Corbyn manifesto of 2019. Throw loads of red meat towards the base, but a) lots of rubbish policies crowding out the ones that individually perhaps are ok, b) but in the totality, everybody with half a brain goes hold on it just isn't possible to do that.
The triple lock++ for oldies, the new triple lock, no tax rises, I presume IHT abolished with be in there.
They’re trying to out-Reform Reform, and that’s going to be impossible now. Because Farage is a far more skilled salesman than Sunak. He has his own particular type of baggage, but he’s not (thank god, many of us would say) ever had to run anything, so he’s a fresh slate in that respect.
The more I look at this the more I think the Tories are screwed and we’re on course for a significant realignment on the right. I thought it would come in the next parliament, but I am starting to think it might actually have arrived early.
There is a general lack of inventive policy across the board. Even Labour flagship stuff like a wealth fund is actually just rehashed centralised PFI when you look at it.
The truth is that at the present time and with our demographics, there is very little scope for major spending. Particularly so when we are taxed at a post war record, and at a rate set to increase for another 4 years.
Which is why I think Labour will have to go big on construction - all those extra jobs, all the VAT on materials, increased council tax as 4 & 5 bed flatshares split into more homes and stamp duty from increased sales. The cost to the exchequer is practically zero, it's popular and the people it annoys were never going to vote for them anyway.
It's a very good point about building generating a lot of income for both local and national government.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
Fingers crossed they adopt it, but it's too much of an open goal not to, especially with the likely large majority and large number of young candidates selected by Labour.
I've just covered the immediate effects - renters (who are solidly Labour) may see reductions in rent - which will bolster support for Labour (and increase alcohol duty receipts...) and councils need to pay less in housing benefit are two other big benefits.
It can be tricky, but making it attractive to redevelop high street buildings into residential seems like one approach. The high street is never coming back the way it was, you can throw all the money you like but internet shopping is here to stay and young people want to live in town so they can socialise within walking distance.
It's already relatively easy and up until September I would have agreed with you. Then I went to Lille. Because buildings are so much cheaper over there (and denser...) commercial properties are much cheaper to rent. The number of niche stores open 4 days a week was ridiculous, probably 80% of those stores would have been DOA in the UK.
Isn't the problem in the UK not just the actual rent, but the rateable values of the property leads to very high taxes for luxury of just being a shop.
Potentially - all I know is that rents/cost of running a shop are much higher here, and there's no intrinsic reason we couldn't have high streets like the french if we wanted (I should note it's not just Lille - Provence and Toulouse have also felt incredibly affluent and varied compared to rich places in the UK - they also all have great tram systems that make the cities a breeze to travel through.)
In so many areas (housing, transport, energy, commercial) we'd do very well to just copy France.
Not sure we want to follow the French approach to suburbs....also large renter population in major cities as a small number of people own all the buildings and never sell. The flipside is better renter rights, but you still can't buy even if you want. That is why you get the slightly weird situation of the middle class French owning their holiday home, but not their actual primary home.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11m This is actually one of those ones where it’s a slow burn. The decision is so mind bendingly, insanely bad the brain can’t initially process it. “Should the PM stay and honour our fallen, or get back for a quick hit for ITN that will go out next week? ITN? Yeah, good call”.
Comments
Come on. Come work in alternative internal provision in a special school.
There's plenty of jobs.
And you know it's a piece of piss.
Why aren't you doing it then?
We are all lucky to have lived in relative peace because of them. I do think of their generation on days like today.
It's also relatively dangerous, compared to our everyday experience.
No one voluntarily spends any real time on the front line unless they're actually involved in the fighting. It's a good way to die.
@Samfr
·
19m
This magic tax avoidance tree is great. Such a shame it took them 14 years to find it.
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1798831138162741286
Schools need about 30000 new teachers entering training a year. Currently, we're running at about two-thirds of that;
https://twitter.com/JackWorthNFER/status/1798356684647387181
You may believe that public sector workers ought to be satisfied with their current packages. You may even be objectively correct. But the jobs market says otherwise, and The Lady had something to say about the buckability of the market.
Blair had a whole range of ideas, as did Cameron (and they came in knowing they had to implement austerity).
Labour offering is same as Tories plans (pre whatever we call the campaign), plus we bring back ASBOs, PFI and let private sector running of trains not be renewed (which is already happening).
But that will only get you so far, and this time there really is no money left. Even more so when you consider what’s it going to cost to bail out local government.
It pays to be Justice Clarence Thomas.
New data from @FixTheCourt on the value of gifts justices received & reported over the past two decades.
https://x.com/stevenmazie/status/1798738498201202993
I hadn't.
https://x.com/Bagpuss_org/status/1796477581086413260
(Can't post the rather good graphic because of image quota, and the Timmy Mallett hammer backing it up.)
In my opinion the Bank of England have not just let the Conservative Party down, but let the whole country down by being far too hawkish. 😠
However. Just how independent is the ECB from political manipulation, as this cut announcement comes on eve of EU voting, does it not?
My Grandfather was in a reserved occupation at the Rolls Royce factory in Hillingdon making aero engines. There were barrage balloons in the housing estate and the kids were evacuated
We all know either party is going to need to raise taxes after the election. Labour can't say that they will do this right now, but if they amplify the Tories saying it (and persuade the country that the Tories are liars at the same time) it might mean the backlash from the post - election budget is a bit less brutal.
Yes, I do need more sleep.
Sunak just seems to be something an AI “make me a politician” programme spat out.
They can't retract it before the interview is broadcast
Superb tribute from Starmer.
Forget the morals and principles involved. Just on the raw politics, they’ve done Sunak for breakfast.
And if you do earn a shit tonne, you are paying loads of extra tax compared to those on normal salaries.
I observed first thing that the child was in a worse fettle than I'd ever seen in 2 years of working with her.
We immediately asked for extra support. None was available. She was alone with her to morning break.
At break we talked. My friend said that she'd been told by the child that she desperately wanted someone else to be with her as my friend was "too nice to hurt." No one was available to switch up with her, let alone go 2 to 1.
So now she's off work. And is on half pay due to too many days off from previous assaults.
She's on £21k pro rata on full salary.
Fuck off and tell me we've a cushy job.
Actual total bound to be higher, but CT's share likely stays about same OR nudges upward.
An election is a fast-moving situation. Rishi recorded something today for broadcast next week?
That's bonkers.
It's a no-brainer of a policy.
If you're 24, seeing your friends working in much less stressful office jobs, earning more and not being treated like shit, you're going to lose your idealism quite quickly.
I work somewhere where staff are very well treated, comparatively, and has a deserved rep as an excellent employer. Really struggling to recruit staff in most subjects and a lot of younger staff leaving the profession. Heard of two staff emigrating today, leaving this summer.
The Tories couldn't even spunk the levelling up money properly. So much wastage on things that won't actually do anything. I found out the other week where a significant amount of money went and it isn't what anybody would think of is what levelling up was for. It wasn't some party loyalist backhander or anything, just totally not what anybody would think of as levelling up.
A jury found him not guilty of falsely inflating revenue at Autonomy, the company he founded and led, when he sold it to Hewlett-Packard for $11 billion in 2011.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/business/dealbook/mike-lynch-autonomy-fraud-hp.html
I've just covered the immediate effects - renters (who are solidly Labour) may see reductions in rent - which will bolster support for Labour (and increase alcohol duty receipts...) and councils need to pay less in housing benefit are two other big benefits.
PFI can make sense if you use it for genuine risk transfer, and you negotiate that well; but you should never use it to get borrowing “off the books”. Quite quickly it will be recategorised as public borrowing anyway these days, and all you’ve done is paid more than the Gilt rate for no gain.
It's a tax - but only on those who didn't have parents rich enough to pay for your degree. Like private schools and housing, it's another way to entrench intergenerational inequality.
But try to get your central heating fixed or a doctor's appointment.
It's all we'll call you back sometime tomorrow.
But I can't have my phone switched on. I'm at work.
Posting on PB is a sackable offence.
The super efficient private sector seems to have solved all that.
Maybe that's the reform we need to stop us idling all the time.
If it were someone else's money I'd hit that bid. As it is I'm not bloody doing that lol, steam rollers and pennies come to mind. And I'm not going long either even though I can see a case for it if anyone believes in cross over - it's far less risky than shorting Tories.
I just hope that we do edge towards crossover so selling it becomes more justifiable.
My SPIN position remains long Labour at 402 with not as much size as I wanted.
Still want to sell Lib Dems at some point too but certainly not here.
My point was that the total level of your student debt should make no difference to your job choice outside of the extreme high end. You shouldn't even think about it. The majority of people are paying that tax for their working life and the vast vast majority for nearly all their working life.
The casualties on 20 and 30mph roads down by 29%. Difficult to split down as so many have changed category between the two. Also worth noting that that does not identify categories of casualty.
It's nice to have some numbers during the Election campaign, though only one quarter's worth.
The number of people injured on 20 and 30mph roads in Wales fell by almost a third in the final quarter of last year, new data published by the Welsh government shows.
The figures show there were 463 casualties on such roads between October and December, down from 681 in the same period a year earlier.
The Welsh Labour government has credited the introduction of default 20mph default speed limits, which took effect last September, but Conservatives said more data was needed. Plaid Cymru, which supported the policy, said the figures were "encouraging".
Labour has since committed to a review of the new law.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjee04vlqglo
Where you can get screwed if you move abroad, but actually the SLC has a terrible record of recovering debt from those not in the country. If you never intend to return for many years, it is very hard for them to do anything.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cneel8ed2vvo
The recent changes to the repayment schedules have made the situation a great deal worse for those on later plans e.g 4 and 5. If you have postgraduate debt on top of that, it is worse,
It is very easy to be in your 40s/50s and not comprehend how dire things are for young people, but it just isn't realistic.
Given the US system, not given my opinion.
If we limited cars to 5mph on all roads, fatalities would drop to near zero. We don’t do that, because we balance the need to move around more quickly, and so we find a balance - in the past set to about 30mph.
The only meaningful figure here would be deaths vs productivity/embuggerance, and there’s no “right” answer.
Right to buy was the biggest expansion in property ownership to working class people this country has seen.
Tuition fees were brought in by Labour originally and expanded by a coalition of LDs and Tories.
The problem is there is no proper market in it, someone who studied sociology at Man Met and became a social worker has the same level of debt as someone who studied economics at Cambridge and became an investment banker. Which is absurd, fees and debt for the former should be less than half those of the latter
I'm at two and a bit hours in a year. It's all training up, disciplining, counselling and covering for totally unqualified TA's.*
* Some of them, like my friend, are absolutely gold dust Saints who go above and beyond every day.
But increasingly the newer supply aren't literate, numerate or even safe.
You just have to do their jobs as well.
Fucking sick of being told we aren't productive.
Just come and do our jobs for a week if you could. Then lecture us.
Is 20mph is a better balance than 30mph, and where and how extensively should it be used?
I suggest that 30 years of experience with hundreds of 20mph schemes in the UK, and extensive experience abroad, shows that it is a better balance for extensive use in urban environments - such as residential and shopping areas.
On speed of moving around, we need data. I'm sure that will become available.
There are also a mass of subjective factors, such as pleasantness of environment for us all to live in, noise, systematic safety (ie the system we use for H&S applied to the road / street environment) and so on.
He just can’t do politics.
However overall adopting zoning like NZ is the way to go. After a few years the markets will decide what is needed. Zoning of course needs to be paired with getting rid of the ridiculous nutrient neutrality, bat bullshit and other ridiculous red tape so that new entrants can actually enter the market again.
In so many areas (housing, transport, energy, commercial) we'd do very well to just copy France.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
11m
This is actually one of those ones where it’s a slow burn. The decision is so mind bendingly, insanely bad the brain can’t initially process it. “Should the PM stay and honour our fallen, or get back for a quick hit for ITN that will go out next week? ITN? Yeah, good call”.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1798848357265523127