"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
Massive problem in lots of places, but not due to the care crisis this time. That's Surrey's problem.
Woking just borrowed a huge amount of money for a building project that went financially pearshaped. And whilst the party responsible has been voted out of office, their sucessors are left holding the impossible baby.
(But in general council finances are yet another thing where the 2019-24 government did just enough to stop the sewage pipe exploding before they left office.)
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
The commentary on the Chagos islands is unbelievably bad for Labour. The only guy cheering them on is Jeremy Corbyn
However I’m not sure it will impact voters. Do they care? They might care about really bad deals that cost us money and give away vast assets even if they don’t know what an atoll is
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I know what you mean, but... how do you nationalise something which, after all, is already part of the state?
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Yes, it's trending on TwitterX. It is, after all, a very large commitment of money to something of negligible value. The opportunity cost of not spending the money productively is pretty large, when we are so constrained in what we can borrow to invest.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Seems to be the announcement of 22Bn for carbon capture.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I know what you mean, but... how do you nationalise something which, after all, is already part of the state?
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Rents are are function of supply and demand, and demand is so high that additional costs aren't going to materially affect rents. We here this whining from landlords every single time and attempt is made to improve the lives of renters.
If supply of rental properties does fall, that's more homes available for first time buyers, thereby reducing demand for rental properties. They can then make the necessary investments in their homes, improve their living conditions and increase their value. Only a neo-feudal mindset would have a problem with this.
I am a landlord, and approve this message.
That's missing a big bit of the picture.
A thought experiment for you. Imagine we halved the size of the rental sector by law, from Jan 1st 2025. Done at random - Landlords had to toss a coin to determine if they had to sell up or not.
What would happen? A fire-sale of current rental properties. Property prices would drop, first time buyers ready to go with a deposit of any size would be off to the races. But quite a few of those first time buyers wouldn't be existing tenants - they would have been living with their parents, moving out of 3 bed houses turned into HMOs for 5 couples, or even just new graduates who hadn't spunked their whole student loan on beer and overpriced accommodation.
Which means that the existing tenants who happen to be at the bottom of the pile and can't buy (say a bit of credit card debt, on benefits) are going to looking for another property to rent - except these will be like gold dust, as we've just halved supply. And what, children, do the laws of supply and demand suggest would happen to the price of something with very inelastic demand, when you've just halved supply? Ah, yes, the market clearing price of that something just got a whole lot more expensive.
So what has our policy done? Shafted some landlords, benefited others (if you don't have to sell, your rental is now earning more without you lifting a finger), massively benefited first time buyers and utterly done over the poorest renters who can't afford to buy.
The EPC rules do exactly the same, except Landlords can buy their way out if they want to.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
The Tories speculated instead of running the council. They have all been ejected as a consequence. The lot. The LDs now run it, but what they are going to do with a £2bn debt goodness knows. Interest payments are higher than the entire council tax received.
Some of those responsible needed to suffer consequences greater than just being ejected from office.
Has the French construction sector hit rock bottom? The French construction sector remains in deep crisis, as reflected in the HCOB PMI for September, which dropped to 37.9 points – the lowest level in nearly a decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The index for civil engineering, in particular, saw a sharp decline compared to the previous month, with the steepest contraction in activity once again occurring in the residential property market. In light of this downturn, the question arises whether the sector has finally reached its lowest point.
The French construction sector continues to suffer from rising prices. Although the pace of price increases slowed somewhat in September, input costs are still growing despite historically weak demand. A small silver lining is the decline in subcontractor prices, likely due to construction companies having sharply reduced their reliance on subcontractors by the end of the third quarter.
The outlook for the French construction sector remains bleak. Order intake continues to shrink significantly, and forecasts for future activity are equally pessimistic. Many construction companies have expressed concerns about the weak demand environment, leading to a further wave of layoffs. A recovery in the sector seems likely only through substantial interest rate cuts in the Eurozone, but hopes for such action remain limited at present.
UK construction companies indicated a decisive improvement in output growth momentum during September, driven by faster upturns across all three major categories of activity.
A combination of lower interest rates, domestic economic stability and strong pipelines of infrastructure work have helped to boost order books in recent months.
New project starts contributed to a moderate expansion of employment numbers and a faster rise in purchasing activity across the construction sector in September. However, greater demand for raw materials and the pass-through of higher wages by suppliers led to the steepest increase in input costs for 16 months.
Business optimism edged down to the lowest since April, but remained much higher than the low point seen last October. Survey respondents cited rising sales enquires since the general election, as well as lower borrowing costs and the potential for stronger house building demand as factors supporting business activity expectations in September.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
I don't understand how companies/nations/people can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
A local authority can go bankrupt because of this triple force: an LA can lawfully take financial and commercial risks; an LA has statutory duties it cannot entirely evade; and an LA has legal limits on how much it can tax its population.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
Sigh, we need a world where people think about consequences. If Local Authorities defaulted on their debt they would find it a hell of a lot more expensive to borrow. Not just the reckless local authorities but all local authorities. Now, you can make an argument that some councils would simply not be so reckless about investments but a hell of a lot of investment in things like housing would simply not happen either. At the moment LAs can borrow at pretty much government rates because the implied guarantee that their loans are equivalent to gilts. That is a massive saving. Do we really want to lose it because of some idiots?
Has the French construction sector hit rock bottom? The French construction sector remains in deep crisis, as reflected in the HCOB PMI for September, which dropped to 37.9 points – the lowest level in nearly a decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The index for civil engineering, in particular, saw a sharp decline compared to the previous month, with the steepest contraction in activity once again occurring in the residential property market. In light of this downturn, the question arises whether the sector has finally reached its lowest point.
The French construction sector continues to suffer from rising prices. Although the pace of price increases slowed somewhat in September, input costs are still growing despite historically weak demand. A small silver lining is the decline in subcontractor prices, likely due to construction companies having sharply reduced their reliance on subcontractors by the end of the third quarter.
The outlook for the French construction sector remains bleak. Order intake continues to shrink significantly, and forecasts for future activity are equally pessimistic. Many construction companies have expressed concerns about the weak demand environment, leading to a further wave of layoffs. A recovery in the sector seems likely only through substantial interest rate cuts in the Eurozone, but hopes for such action remain limited at present.
UK construction companies indicated a decisive improvement in output growth momentum during September, driven by faster upturns across all three major categories of activity.
A combination of lower interest rates, domestic economic stability and strong pipelines of infrastructure work have helped to boost order books in recent months.
New project starts contributed to a moderate expansion of employment numbers and a faster rise in purchasing activity across the construction sector in September. However, greater demand for raw materials and the pass-through of higher wages by suppliers led to the steepest increase in input costs for 16 months.
Business optimism edged down to the lowest since April, but remained much higher than the low point seen last October. Survey respondents cited rising sales enquires since the general election, as well as lower borrowing costs and the potential for stronger house building demand as factors supporting business activity expectations in September.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
Tories once again looking for a bail out for their incompetence.
Who do you think Woking council owe money to ?
They owe the majority of the money to central government, £1.3bn alone to the Public Works Loan Board (as was).
So going bankrupt and defaulting on their debt moves the cost from the local taxpayer to the national taxpayer.
Back in the day elected Liverpool councillors were surcharged.
A decade ago the taxpayers alliance was boasting about how marvellous Woking was, how they had slashed staff, embraced the private sector etc
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
The Tories speculated instead of running the council. They have all been ejected as a consequence. The lot. The LDs now run it, but what they are going to do with a £2bn debt goodness knows. Interest payments are higher than the entire council tax received.
Some of those responsible needed to suffer consequences greater than just being ejected from office.
What security is there on this £2bn debt that stops the council just defaulting? In any sane system, the lenders would lose their shirts, and this might make them less inclined to lend to profligate councils in the first place.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
Tories once again looking for a bail out for their incompetence.
Who do you think Woking council owe money to ?
They owe the majority of the money to central government, £1.3bn alone to the Public Works Loan Board (as was).
So going bankrupt and defaulting on their debt moves the cost from the local taxpayer to the national taxpayer.
Back in the day elected Liverpool councillors were surcharged.
A decade ago the taxpayers alliance was boasting about how marvellous Woking was, how they had slashed staff, embraced the private sector etc
The Singapore of Surrey we were told.
Hows that looking now ?
For extra comedy - they went all in on building stuff…
Has the French construction sector hit rock bottom? The French construction sector remains in deep crisis, as reflected in the HCOB PMI for September, which dropped to 37.9 points – the lowest level in nearly a decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The index for civil engineering, in particular, saw a sharp decline compared to the previous month, with the steepest contraction in activity once again occurring in the residential property market. In light of this downturn, the question arises whether the sector has finally reached its lowest point.
The French construction sector continues to suffer from rising prices. Although the pace of price increases slowed somewhat in September, input costs are still growing despite historically weak demand. A small silver lining is the decline in subcontractor prices, likely due to construction companies having sharply reduced their reliance on subcontractors by the end of the third quarter.
The outlook for the French construction sector remains bleak. Order intake continues to shrink significantly, and forecasts for future activity are equally pessimistic. Many construction companies have expressed concerns about the weak demand environment, leading to a further wave of layoffs. A recovery in the sector seems likely only through substantial interest rate cuts in the Eurozone, but hopes for such action remain limited at present.
UK construction companies indicated a decisive improvement in output growth momentum during September, driven by faster upturns across all three major categories of activity.
A combination of lower interest rates, domestic economic stability and strong pipelines of infrastructure work have helped to boost order books in recent months.
New project starts contributed to a moderate expansion of employment numbers and a faster rise in purchasing activity across the construction sector in September. However, greater demand for raw materials and the pass-through of higher wages by suppliers led to the steepest increase in input costs for 16 months.
Business optimism edged down to the lowest since April, but remained much higher than the low point seen last October. Survey respondents cited rising sales enquires since the general election, as well as lower borrowing costs and the potential for stronger house building demand as factors supporting business activity expectations in September.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
Sigh, we need a world where people think about consequences. If Local Authorities defaulted on their debt they would find it a hell of a lot more expensive to borrow. Not just the reckless local authorities but all local authorities. Now, you can make an argument that some councils would simply not be so reckless about investments but a hell of a lot of investment in things like housing would simply not happen either. At the moment LAs can borrow at pretty much government rates because the implied guarantee that their loans are equivalent to gilts. That is a massive saving. Do we really want to lose it because of some idiots?
Some years ago, there was a documentary about the 80s. A minister under Thatcher was asked - wouldn’t have it been better politics to let the Loony Labour councils sink themselves?
As I recall, he was rather shocked at the suggestion of letting the council tax payers get stung like that.
The latest jobs report showed unemployment down to 4.1% . The forecast was an increase to 4.3% .
Non-farm payrolls came in at 254,000 well above the forecast of 130,000.
I think I am right in saying that is lower than it was at any point during the Trump Presidency. Inflation has come in lower than expected in the last few days too. Trump's campaign is focused (to the extent that he is capable of it) on immigration, the economy and crime. There has been a sharp fall in immigration this year after record peaks last year. The economic story for Biden/Harris continues to get better and better. Crime is, according to the FBI, falling, particularly violent crime.
The power of his talking points is declining. Meanwhile he still can't hold a line on abortion for an entire interview, his criminal conduct in the lead up to Jan 6th has been laid bare by Smith's motion and he seems ever more dottled in his speeches.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Rents are are function of supply and demand, and demand is so high that additional costs aren't going to materially affect rents. We here this whining from landlords every single time and attempt is made to improve the lives of renters.
If supply of rental properties does fall, that's more homes available for first time buyers, thereby reducing demand for rental properties. They can then make the necessary investments in their homes, improve their living conditions and increase their value. Only a neo-feudal mindset would have a problem with this.
I am a landlord, and approve this message.
That's missing a big bit of the picture.
A thought experiment for you. Imagine we halved the size of the rental sector by law, from Jan 1st 2025. Done at random - Landlords had to toss a coin to determine if they had to sell up or not.
What would happen? A fire-sale of current rental properties. Property prices would drop, first time buyers ready to go with a deposit of any size would be off to the races. But quite a few of those first time buyers wouldn't be existing tenants - they would have been living with their parents, moving out of 3 bed houses turned into HMOs for 5 couples, or even just new graduates who hadn't spunked their whole student loan on beer and overpriced accommodation.
Which means that the existing tenants who happen to be at the bottom of the pile and can't buy (say a bit of credit card debt, on benefits) are going to looking for another property to rent - except these will be like gold dust, as we've just halved supply. And what, children, do the laws of supply and demand suggest would happen to the price of something with very inelastic demand, when you've just halved supply.
So what has our policy done? Shafted some landlords, benefited others (if you don't have to sell, your rental is now earning more without you lifting a finger), massively benefited first time buyers and utterly done over the poorest renters who can't afford to buy.
The EPC rules do exactly the same, except Landlords can buy their way out if they want to.
What you're arguing is that improving energy efficiency is bad because you won't be able to cram as many renters into freezing smaller houses and flats, and suddenly have lots of young people who are owner occupiers. And people talk about Labour being depressing.
Perhaps it should be paired with a policy to free up those 26 million spare bedrooms? Tax those millionaire pensioners and boomers for each spare bedroom until the market reaches a better equilibrium. Start with a LVT.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
Because they are legally obliged by central government to provide services, and at the same time limited by central government in how much money they can raise through local taxation, or borrow.
And sometimes they aren't very well managed, too.
They can borrow freely against capital projects, but are supposed to demonstrate that such borrowing is prudent.
https://www.dmo.gov.uk/responsibilities/local-authority-lending/about-pwlb-lending/ ...Major local authorities (e.g. metropolitan, borough, county, city and combined authorities) may take out PWLB loans. Since 2004, under the prudential regime, major local authorities are responsible for their own financial decision making. They are free to finance capital projects by borrowing, provided they can afford to service their debts out of their revenues. In deciding how much debt is affordable, major local authorities are required by law to "have regard" to the Prudential Code, published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), but have discretion to decide how to fulfil this statutory requirement.
Decisions over which capital projects to pursue and whether to borrow for these investments are the responsibility of the elected Council of each local authority, who are accountable to their electorates. Local authorities are free to borrow so long as the finance director is satisfied that they are acting in line with statute and can afford to repay the loan. The PWLB is a non-discretionary lender: it does not ask the purpose of a loan, as this would duplicate the decision-making structures of the individual local authorities...
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
Sigh, we need a world where people think about consequences. If Local Authorities defaulted on their debt they would find it a hell of a lot more expensive to borrow. Not just the reckless local authorities but all local authorities. Now, you can make an argument that some councils would simply not be so reckless about investments but a hell of a lot of investment in things like housing would simply not happen either. At the moment LAs can borrow at pretty much government rates because the implied guarantee that their loans are equivalent to gilts. That is a massive saving. Do we really want to lose it because of some idiots?
That's the other thing. Trouble is that councils like Woking and Thurrock thought they were doing something clever, borrowing money to invest/bet on a sure thing. Services up, council tax down, lovely jubbly. Lots of councils have done similar things, or put capital windfalls into buying commercial property to generate revenue. Which works brilliantly right up to the moment that it doesn't.
And the Audit Commission, which used to keep an eye on what councils were up to, got nixed by the 2010-15 government.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
A local authority can go bankrupt because of this triple force: an LA can lawfully take financial and commercial risks; an LA has statutory duties it cannot entirely evade; and an LA has legal limits on how much it can tax its population.
Pick any two.
Also - as per Birmingham - it can get caught out on employment law and find itself landed with a bill for hundreds of millions decades after the event. Or be subject to fraud or any of the other things that can trip up businesses and organisations large or small, beyond its own constraints, obligations and decisions as a council.
The latest jobs report showed unemployment down to 4.1% . The forecast was an increase to 4.3% .
Non-farm payrolls came in at 254,000 well above the forecast of 130,000.
I think I am right in saying that is lower than it was at any point during the Trump Presidency. Inflation has come in lower than expected in the last few days too. Trump's campaign is focused (to the extent that he is capable of it) on immigration, the economy and crime. There has been a sharp fall in immigration this year after record peaks last year. The economic story for Biden/Harris continues to get better and better. Crime is, according to the FBI, falling, particularly violent crime.
The power of his talking points is declining. Meanwhile he still can't hold a line on abortion for an entire interview, his criminal conduct in the lead up to Jan 6th has been laid bare by Smith's motion and he seems ever more dottled in his speeches.
And yet, its still dangerously close.
There’s no sign I can see that the real Trump has dented the anti-Democrat vote for mythical Trump.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
They have very little room to manoeuvre. Central government tells them there's a huge stack of things they have to spend money on. Central government tells them they can't raise taxes by more than a limited amount. Central government cuts their grant funding.
All councils are heading towards bankruptcy, and if they make a mistake they reach the end point more quickly than the other councils.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
I don't understand how companies/nations/people can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
This is not a matter of a little overspending building up over many years.
Woking (and they weren't the only ones) made colossal property development bets that have gone badly, badly wrong. Other disasters (Thurrock) involve Solar farms, and (Warrington) energy companies.
Some of this was regeneration, much was highly speculative bets that were going to be profitable and reduce the impact of cuts to local government spending.
All of these are outside what should be the scope of local councils and miles outside the scope of their capability.
Has the French construction sector hit rock bottom? The French construction sector remains in deep crisis, as reflected in the HCOB PMI for September, which dropped to 37.9 points – the lowest level in nearly a decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The index for civil engineering, in particular, saw a sharp decline compared to the previous month, with the steepest contraction in activity once again occurring in the residential property market. In light of this downturn, the question arises whether the sector has finally reached its lowest point.
The French construction sector continues to suffer from rising prices. Although the pace of price increases slowed somewhat in September, input costs are still growing despite historically weak demand. A small silver lining is the decline in subcontractor prices, likely due to construction companies having sharply reduced their reliance on subcontractors by the end of the third quarter.
The outlook for the French construction sector remains bleak. Order intake continues to shrink significantly, and forecasts for future activity are equally pessimistic. Many construction companies have expressed concerns about the weak demand environment, leading to a further wave of layoffs. A recovery in the sector seems likely only through substantial interest rate cuts in the Eurozone, but hopes for such action remain limited at present.
UK construction companies indicated a decisive improvement in output growth momentum during September, driven by faster upturns across all three major categories of activity.
A combination of lower interest rates, domestic economic stability and strong pipelines of infrastructure work have helped to boost order books in recent months.
New project starts contributed to a moderate expansion of employment numbers and a faster rise in purchasing activity across the construction sector in September. However, greater demand for raw materials and the pass-through of higher wages by suppliers led to the steepest increase in input costs for 16 months.
Business optimism edged down to the lowest since April, but remained much higher than the low point seen last October. Survey respondents cited rising sales enquires since the general election, as well as lower borrowing costs and the potential for stronger house building demand as factors supporting business activity expectations in September.
Have decided not to think about the chagos islands surrender as it is so distressingly stupid it is physically painful
Not remotely as stupid as Brexit
Are you the world's most boring man?
I can just imagine conversation in your house, if indeed anyone still lives with or talks to you, about how you'd compare absolutely anything to being "not remotely as stupid as Brexit".
1. Microwaving a salad - Because at least you know it’s pointless before you do it, unlike, say… a certain referendum. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
2. Trying to charge a banana with a USB cable Yes, it’s illogical, but at least it doesn’t affect trade agreements with 27 countries. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
3. Asking Siri for directions to Narnia Siri might be confused, but at least it won’t be not remotely as stupid as Brexit
4. Throwing a surprise party for your goldfish Goldfish have short memories, but still longer to live than some of those who voted to leave. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
5. Using mayonnaise as sunblock You’ll get weird looks, sure, but at least your supply chains for critical goods won’t collapse. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
6. Washing your hands with peanut butter Not effective, but still a more sensible strategy than negotiating with Brussels for three years. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
7. Declaring war on a vending machine Vending machines can be frustrating, but at least they don’t demand a backstop for Ireland. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
8. Knitting a sweater out of spaghetti It won’t keep you warm, but at least it’s not triggering a constitutional crisis. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
9. Trying to vacuum the lawn A waste of time, sure—but not on the scale of proroguing Parliament to avoid making a decision. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
10. Attempting to fly by flapping your arms really hard. This may result in a sore shoulder, but won’t result in a catastrophic drop in GDP. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Seems to be the announcement of 22Bn for carbon capture.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
The £22bn covers CAPEX and OPEX and is only paid out by the government as each tonne of CO2 is actually captured and stored.
So paid out over 15 years, starting when projects commence commercial operation.
There has been discussion here about how the unpopularity of Lab and Con could see the LibDems, Greens and Reform UK making big gains at the next general election. What this (limited) set of local election results suggests is that the traditional parties (Con, LibDem, SNP) are usually the best poised to take advantage of any Labour decline.
One gain is good news for Reform UK. That’s a 4% increase in their total councillor count! But they’ve got a long journey ahead of them to become the sort of on-the-ground campaigning party that can turn votes into seats under FPTP.
I don't think that's true any more. Firstly, Reform do seem to have quite large numbers of members but more importantly, ground game isn't going to matter at local elections all that much (as opposed to by-elections where parties can concentrate efforts) because there aren't all that many activists full stop. If Reform continue to poll 18% or so in national polls, they'll win hundreds of seats, as UKIP did in 2013-16, mostly without any significant local effort.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
I don't understand how companies/nations/people can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
This is not a matter of a little overspending building up over many years.
Woking (and they weren't the only ones) made colossal property development bets that have gone badly, badly wrong. Other disasters (Thurrock) involve Solar farms, and (Warrington) energy companies.
Some of this was regeneration, much was highly speculative bets that were going to be profitable and reduce the impact of cuts to local government spending.
All of these are outside what should be the scope of local councils and miles outside the scope of their capability.
All of these are outside what should be the scope of local councils and miles outside the scope of their capability.
Which is exactly why they managed to lose their shirts. And the tax payers shirts.
Most tales of failing ventures go like this
1) it all looked kinda great 2) but there were, in fact structural problems. 3) the tide went out, and the lack go swimming trunks became apparent. Often the tide goes out quite fast.
Note that solar, energy and property is where a lot of people are making lots of money. Which is why they are good areas for sharks to feed on the gullible.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Everyone in time if it leads to more energy efficient buildings?
Cost benefit analysis on 14k to save sub 100 a year? It would take 140 years to pay back the investment...
Other estimates are available. The £100/year must be making some pretty heroic assumptions about only moving from near the top of D to near the bottom of C (which is nonsense, as many properties will be worse), rather than say F to C or D to B (at possible minimal extra cost, if e.g. internally or externally wall insulating and simply using more insulation - labour and finishing much bigger costs than the extra insulation).
You would, indeed, be a fool to spend £14k on that kind of benefit, but I'd be surprised if that cost/benefit ratio exists outside a very few niche properties.
Has the French construction sector hit rock bottom? The French construction sector remains in deep crisis, as reflected in the HCOB PMI for September, which dropped to 37.9 points – the lowest level in nearly a decade, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period. The index for civil engineering, in particular, saw a sharp decline compared to the previous month, with the steepest contraction in activity once again occurring in the residential property market. In light of this downturn, the question arises whether the sector has finally reached its lowest point.
The French construction sector continues to suffer from rising prices. Although the pace of price increases slowed somewhat in September, input costs are still growing despite historically weak demand. A small silver lining is the decline in subcontractor prices, likely due to construction companies having sharply reduced their reliance on subcontractors by the end of the third quarter.
The outlook for the French construction sector remains bleak. Order intake continues to shrink significantly, and forecasts for future activity are equally pessimistic. Many construction companies have expressed concerns about the weak demand environment, leading to a further wave of layoffs. A recovery in the sector seems likely only through substantial interest rate cuts in the Eurozone, but hopes for such action remain limited at present.
UK construction companies indicated a decisive improvement in output growth momentum during September, driven by faster upturns across all three major categories of activity.
A combination of lower interest rates, domestic economic stability and strong pipelines of infrastructure work have helped to boost order books in recent months.
New project starts contributed to a moderate expansion of employment numbers and a faster rise in purchasing activity across the construction sector in September. However, greater demand for raw materials and the pass-through of higher wages by suppliers led to the steepest increase in input costs for 16 months.
Business optimism edged down to the lowest since April, but remained much higher than the low point seen last October. Survey respondents cited rising sales enquires since the general election, as well as lower borrowing costs and the potential for stronger house building demand as factors supporting business activity expectations in September.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Seems to be the announcement of 22Bn for carbon capture.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
The £22bn covers CAPEX and OPEX and is only paid out by the government as each tonne of CO2 is actually captured and stored.
So paid out over 15 years, starting when projects commence commercial operation.
It's still £22bn committed to something of very little economic value,
Have decided not to think about the chagos islands surrender as it is so distressingly stupid it is physically painful
Not remotely as stupid as Brexit
Are you the world's most boring man?
I can just imagine conversation in your house, if indeed anyone still lives with or talks to you, about how you'd compare absolutely anything to being "not remotely as stupid as Brexit".
:
7. Declaring war on a vending machine Vending machines can be frustrating, but at least they don’t demand a backstop for Ireland. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
Have decided not to think about the chagos islands surrender as it is so distressingly stupid it is physically painful
Not remotely as stupid as Brexit
Are you the world's most boring man?
I can just imagine conversation in your house, if indeed anyone still lives with or talks to you, about how you'd compare absolutely anything to being "not remotely as stupid as Brexit".
1. Microwaving a salad - Because at least you know it’s pointless before you do it, unlike, say… a certain referendum. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
2. Trying to charge a banana with a USB cable Yes, it’s illogical, but at least it doesn’t affect trade agreements with 27 countries. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
3. Asking Siri for directions to Narnia Siri might be confused, but at least it won’t be not remotely as stupid as Brexit
4. Throwing a surprise party for your goldfish Goldfish have short memories, but still longer to live than some of those who voted to leave. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
5. Using mayonnaise as sunblock You’ll get weird looks, sure, but at least your supply chains for critical goods won’t collapse. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
6. Washing your hands with peanut butter Not effective, but still a more sensible strategy than negotiating with Brussels for three years. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
7. Declaring war on a vending machine Vending machines can be frustrating, but at least they don’t demand a backstop for Ireland. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
8. Knitting a sweater out of spaghetti It won’t keep you warm, but at least it’s not triggering a constitutional crisis. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
9. Trying to vacuum the lawn A waste of time, sure—but not on the scale of proroguing Parliament to avoid making a decision. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
10. Attempting to fly by flapping your arms really hard. This may result in a sore shoulder, but won’t result in a catastrophic drop in GDP. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
Have you become a Remainer, Casino? Welcome to the team!
Have decided not to think about the chagos islands surrender as it is so distressingly stupid it is physically painful
Not remotely as stupid as Brexit
Are you the world's most boring man?
I can just imagine conversation in your house, if indeed anyone still lives with or talks to you, about how you'd compare absolutely anything to being "not remotely as stupid as Brexit".
:
7. Declaring war on a vending machine Vending machines can be frustrating, but at least they don’t demand a backstop for Ireland. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
“Starmer refuses to rule out signing away Gibraltar and Falklands”
Telegraph
Fucking hell
(a) It's the Telegraph.
(b) "refuses to rule out" is a typical trick of journalists and rival politicians. It usually just means that the person concerned happened not to comment on the topic at hand. You're old enough to know this by now. The Telegraph report at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/04/politics-latest-news-starmer-labour-chagos-security/ goes on to say, "A spokesman for No10 told GB News: “Chagos does not change our policy or approach to other overseas territories.”" That statement is nothing to get excited about.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
“Starmer refuses to rule out signing away Gibraltar and Falklands”
Telegraph
Fucking hell
Telegraph is spinning it of course - nonetheless he was given the opportunity to assure everyone Chagos was a unique one-off, and he didn’t take it
Indeed, he didn't actually say that but didn't deny it either.
Meanwhile the LDs back Starmer on the Chagos Islands
'Sir Ed Davey has signalled that he supports the Government’s decision to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, amid a backlash from the Conservatives.
The Liberal Democrat leader said people “need to realise that this had to be done” for the UK to follow international law.
He told PA news agency: “I have seen the Conservatives complaining about it but they started all the talks. I think it was James Cleverly when he was foreign secretary.”
In important news, I have just had my first mince pie of the season.
Merry Christmas!
Even more important news: Christmas begins on the evening of 24th December and continues without a break until 2nd February. Dry January is an heretical Cromwellian innovation to be ignored.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
Sigh, we need a world where people think about consequences. If Local Authorities defaulted on their debt they would find it a hell of a lot more expensive to borrow. Not just the reckless local authorities but all local authorities. Now, you can make an argument that some councils would simply not be so reckless about investments but a hell of a lot of investment in things like housing would simply not happen either. At the moment LAs can borrow at pretty much government rates because the implied guarantee that their loans are equivalent to gilts. That is a massive saving. Do we really want to lose it because of some idiots?
That's the other thing. Trouble is that councils like Woking and Thurrock thought they were doing something clever, borrowing money to invest/bet on a sure thing. Services up, council tax down, lovely jubbly. Lots of councils have done similar things, or put capital windfalls into buying commercial property to generate revenue. Which works brilliantly right up to the moment that it doesn't.
And the Audit Commission, which used to keep an eye on what councils were up to, got nixed by the 2010-15 government.
Local authorities can make money. When I was a councillor on Hertsmere, I found that there a string of properties which they owned, which were being let out for ridiculous rents (sometimes no rent at all). In particular, garages that they retained, when properties were sold under right to buy. There was a very posh pub which had been let on a 99 years lease at £3,000 a year, in 1973, with rent reviews every 33 years, which was a peppercorn rent by 2002. So, I had a schedule of dilapidations carried out (it's a Tudor building), and we found an enormous amount of dilapidation, and then used that as a lever to renegotiate a proper commercial lease, putting up the rent to £40,000 p.a.
But, that's a far cry from plunging into property development, where the sharks just see you coming.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Seems to be the announcement of 22Bn for carbon capture.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
The £22bn covers CAPEX and OPEX and is only paid out by the government as each tonne of CO2 is actually captured and stored.
So paid out over 15 years, starting when projects commence commercial operation.
Its almost literally spending £22bn on hot air.
Its inevitable that we will need gas as some part of the energy mix past 2030 so therefore miss "net zero".
So we spend £22 bn on something that tries to make it look like we will hit net zero sometime a few years after 2030 (and past the next election).
That £22 bn could be far better spent on something else.
Where does on start with that (it's the Telegrunt, btw)?
"20 ex-MPs announce backing of James Cleverly for leader
Twenty ex-MPs who lost their seats at the 2024 general election have announced that they are backing James Cleverly as leader of the Conservatives.
Former Tory colleagues have said that the party does “ not have time for a leader to learn on the job” and that the shadow home secretary was the right person to “provide the conservative solutions”.
Among the 20 is Giles Watling, who lost his Clacton seat to Nigel Farage of Reform UK in July.
"Woking may be a well-heeled Surrey commuter town where homes cost 60pc more than the national average – but its residents cannot escape the grim reality of having a council that in 2023 declared itself effectively bankrupt.
The scale of Woking Council’s financial woes came to the fore earlier this year when it announced it could no longer afford to maintain its public toilets, including those near a well-used playground outside the town centre.
As an alternative, the local authority suggested that residents living near the playground could club together and come up with £5,000 a year to pay for the toilet’s upkeep."
We need a method of bankrupting councils. Bankrupt companies can wipe out their debts. Woking can't function with it's debt burden (which is huge). Take it over, nationalise all the assets, default on the debt, do a fire sale on those assets and run a basic council until things recover.
I don't understand how councils can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
I don't understand how companies/nations/people can even come close to being bankrupt. They ought to be able to notice a long time before that they need to do something to stop it happening.
This is not a matter of a little overspending building up over many years.
Woking (and they weren't the only ones) made colossal property development bets that have gone badly, badly wrong. Other disasters (Thurrock) involve Solar farms, and (Warrington) energy companies.
Some of this was regeneration, much was highly speculative bets that were going to be profitable and reduce the impact of cuts to local government spending.
All of these are outside what should be the scope of local councils and miles outside the scope of their capability.
The other basic point is that unlike companies or people councils have things they legally have to spend money on, and were prevented from raising council tax easily by the previous government.
So when the finances were going awry there's only so much they could do via cloth-cutting - and raising taxes had been made deliberately difficult. If I am badly in debt I can drastically cut my outgoings, maybe ask for a pay rise or apply for jobs that would boost my income. Councils find it far more difficult to do the equivalent.
Woking and others' speculation was part of that as to avoid huge unpopular cuts to services people expect, but aren't legally required to provide, like leisure facilities, they made risky investments in the hope they were a win-win by giving them additional income streams and regenerating areas that needed investment. So could avoid those cuts.
In Woking's case that went spectacularly wrong, as an attempt to transform the town centre that was already ambitious to the point of being misguided, ran into the pandemic and became a financial catastrophe. So the debts became huge, with little to show for it - and with the same problems of tax and spend as before. So bankruptcy becomes fairly inevitable as there's really no way to function as a council and service the debts racked up by the previous Tory council.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
The idea that EV sales have vanished isn’t borne out by the data
They haven't but according to Sky business the sales of evs are almost exclusively to fleet buyers
Company cars on average drive 2 - 2.5 times the number of miles that the average driver does.
Far from being a bad thing (as you no doubt think) that fleet sales make 75% of Electric vehicle sales, its a positive.
It also means a nice slug of cheap(er) EV cars in 3 years when those company cars are replaced.
It would be peverse if Mrs Goggins of Greendale was buying an electric car to do a once weekly trip to the shop.
It wouldn't be, if the car industry were mass producing cheap EVs suitable for the odd trip to the supermarket. They aren't, yet. (Though China is, which is why EVs are now half the new car market over there.)
Where does on start with that (it's the Telegrunt, btw)?
"20 ex-MPs announce backing of James Cleverly for leader
Twenty ex-MPs who lost their seats at the 2024 general election have announced that they are backing James Cleverly as leader of the Conservatives.
Former Tory colleagues have said that the party does “ not have time for a leader to learn on the job” and that the shadow home secretary was the right person to “provide the conservative solutions”.
Among the 20 is Giles Watling, who lost his Clacton seat to Nigel Farage of Reform UK in July.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
The idea that EV sales have vanished isn’t borne out by the data
They haven't but according to Sky business the sales of evs are almost exclusively to fleet buyers
Company cars on average drive 2 - 2.5 times the number of miles that the average driver does.
Far from being a bad thing (as you no doubt think) that fleet sales make 75% of Electric vehicle sales, its a positive.
It also means a nice slug of cheap(er) EV cars in 3 years when those company cars are replaced.
It would be peverse if Mrs Goggins of Greendale was buying an electric car to do a once weekly trip to the shop.
Mrs Goggins of Greendale is in no position to buy an EV or any other sort of car because she has only recently been let out of prison following her Horizon conviction for post office fraud and has not yet received her compensation. She is also 132 years of age.
A modern remake of Postman Pat would have much more exciting story lines.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
The next exciting one is going to be forcing landlords to upgrade all properties to an EPC rating of C by 2030.
Reading on various forums how some older buildings will cost £4000-14000 to bring them up to code (with a few being utterly impossible), while saving tenants less than £100 a year on their energy bills.
The landlords that stay in the market will pass the costs on to tenants. Rents go up. The landlords that leave the market will reduce the supply of houses for rent. Again, rents go up.
Struggling to see who the policy benefits.
Rents are are function of supply and demand, and demand is so high that additional costs aren't going to materially affect rents. We here this whining from landlords every single time and attempt is made to improve the lives of renters.
If supply of rental properties does fall, that's more homes available for first time buyers, thereby reducing demand for rental properties. They can then make the necessary investments in their homes, improve their living conditions and increase their value. Only a neo-feudal mindset would have a problem with this.
I am a landlord, and approve this message.
That's missing a big bit of the picture.
A thought experiment for you. Imagine we halved the size of the rental sector by law, from Jan 1st 2025. Done at random - Landlords had to toss a coin to determine if they had to sell up or not.
What would happen? A fire-sale of current rental properties. Property prices would drop, first time buyers ready to go with a deposit of any size would be off to the races. But quite a few of those first time buyers wouldn't be existing tenants - they would have been living with their parents, moving out of 3 bed houses turned into HMOs for 5 couples, or even just new graduates who hadn't spunked their whole student loan on beer and overpriced accommodation.
Which means that the existing tenants who happen to be at the bottom of the pile and can't buy (say a bit of credit card debt, on benefits) are going to looking for another property to rent - except these will be like gold dust, as we've just halved supply. And what, children, do the laws of supply and demand suggest would happen to the price of something with very inelastic demand, when you've just halved supply.
So what has our policy done? Shafted some landlords, benefited others (if you don't have to sell, your rental is now earning more without you lifting a finger), massively benefited first time buyers and utterly done over the poorest renters who can't afford to buy.
The EPC rules do exactly the same, except Landlords can buy their way out if they want to.
What you're arguing is that improving energy efficiency is bad because you won't be able to cram as many renters into freezing smaller houses and flats, and suddenly have lots of young people who are owner occupiers. And people talk about Labour being depressing.
Perhaps it should be paired with a policy to free up those 26 million spare bedrooms? Tax those millionaire pensioners and boomers for each spare bedroom until the market reaches a better equilibrium. Start with a LVT.
Wrong end of the telescope.
The problem is that there are too few houses/too many people. All that mucking around with regs for landlords does is swing the pendulum a bit between renters and homeowners - it won't stop almost everyone's income being gobbled up by housing.
The fact that the people the EPC rules are meant to help are actually going to be done over by them is a minor sideshow in the big picture, although pretty grim if your a tenant not in a position to buy.
The only real fix for any of this is more houses (planning easier to get, dial down building regs) and less people (net zero migration).
The Iranians are threatening to destroy Israel's entire energy infrastructure if they make "a mistake", according to various reports in the last few hours. Grim times.
The Iranians are threatening to destroy Israel's entire energy infrastructure if they make "a mistake", according to various reports in the last few hours. Grim times.
Have decided not to think about the chagos islands surrender as it is so distressingly stupid it is physically painful
Not remotely as stupid as Brexit
Are you the world's most boring man?
I can just imagine conversation in your house, if indeed anyone still lives with or talks to you, about how you'd compare absolutely anything to being "not remotely as stupid as Brexit".
1. Microwaving a salad - Because at least you know it’s pointless before you do it, unlike, say… a certain referendum. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
2. Trying to charge a banana with a USB cable Yes, it’s illogical, but at least it doesn’t affect trade agreements with 27 countries. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
3. Asking Siri for directions to Narnia Siri might be confused, but at least it won’t be not remotely as stupid as Brexit
4. Throwing a surprise party for your goldfish Goldfish have short memories, but still longer to live than some of those who voted to leave. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
5. Using mayonnaise as sunblock You’ll get weird looks, sure, but at least your supply chains for critical goods won’t collapse. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
6. Washing your hands with peanut butter Not effective, but still a more sensible strategy than negotiating with Brussels for three years. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
7. Declaring war on a vending machine Vending machines can be frustrating, but at least they don’t demand a backstop for Ireland. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
8. Knitting a sweater out of spaghetti It won’t keep you warm, but at least it’s not triggering a constitutional crisis. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
9. Trying to vacuum the lawn A waste of time, sure—but not on the scale of proroguing Parliament to avoid making a decision. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
10. Attempting to fly by flapping your arms really hard. This may result in a sore shoulder, but won’t result in a catastrophic drop in GDP. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
Have you become a Remainer, Casino? Welcome to the team!
The Iranians are threatening to destroy Israel's entire energy infrastructure if they make "a mistake", according to various reports in the last few hours. Grim times.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Seems to be the announcement of 22Bn for carbon capture.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
The £22bn covers CAPEX and OPEX and is only paid out by the government as each tonne of CO2 is actually captured and stored.
So paid out over 15 years, starting when projects commence commercial operation.
Its almost literally spending £22bn on hot air.
Its inevitable that we will need gas as some part of the energy mix past 2030 so therefore miss "net zero".
So we spend £22 bn on something that tries to make it look like we will hit net zero sometime a few years after 2030 (and past the next election).
That £22 bn could be far better spent on something else.
Clearly the government agrees with your assessment that there is a role for gas fired generation post 2030, hence looking to implement a CCGT with CCS.
The Iranians are threatening to destroy Israel's entire energy infrastructure if they make "a mistake", according to various reports in the last few hours. Grim times.
How?!
The more belligerent the Iranian regime's rhetoric, the more in trouble they know they are in.
Just wondering if it is going to be politically sustainable to fine car manufacturers because buyers don't feel like buying electric cars in sufficient quantities?
It feels like one of those policies that is fine for 10 years time, but less fine when the time comes - which apparently is around now. It would appear entirely incompatible with the most rudimentary idea of justice.
I just cannot see it
Governments are trying to force action on climate change, but the public are not acting accordingly as the recent figures show them turning back to petrol and diesel and falling EV sales and even those only sustained by fleet buyers
Governments are going to find that it's much easier to get people to play along if they offer carrots rather than sticks. The only reason for a lot of EV purchases now is that the BIK rules make them very attractive to have as a company car (carrot).
Trying to get the public onboard with buying EVs by massive fines on the things they want to buy (stick) is going to go down like a cup of cold sick (and the public will know, because you can be sure the dealerships will tell them).
It's also going to remain difficult to shift them to the public all the while the residuals are rubbish (which will remain the case at least until technological development plateaus again - last years model will be worth even less than it otherwise would be if this years model is better/cheaper).
The idea that EV sales have vanished isn’t borne out by the data
They haven't but according to Sky business the sales of evs are almost exclusively to fleet buyers
Company cars on average drive 2 - 2.5 times the number of miles that the average driver does.
Far from being a bad thing (as you no doubt think) that fleet sales make 75% of Electric vehicle sales, its a positive.
It also means a nice slug of cheap(er) EV cars in 3 years when those company cars are replaced.
It would be peverse if Mrs Goggins of Greendale was buying an electric car to do a once weekly trip to the shop.
Mrs Goggins of Greendale is in no position to buy an EV or any other sort of car because she has only recently been let out of prison following her Horizon conviction for post office fraud and has not yet received her compensation. She is also 132 years of age.
A modern remake of Postman Pat would have much more exciting story lines.
Let me try....
The convicted Sub Post Mistress concocts an elaborate scheme to get the prison guards, the prison governor and, eventually, the Post Office board involved in a fraud. While in prison.
Having dug a tunnel behind a huge poster of Mr Darcy, she escapes to freedom, taking all the money in the fraud. And leaving enough evidence to get everyone arrested.
The Iranians are threatening to destroy Israel's entire energy infrastructure if they make "a mistake", according to various reports in the last few hours. Grim times.
How?!
The more belligerent the Iranian regime's rhetoric, the more in trouble they know they are in.
Agreed. This sounds like the mother of all blustering
Have decided not to think about the chagos islands surrender as it is so distressingly stupid it is physically painful
Not remotely as stupid as Brexit
Are you the world's most boring man?
I can just imagine conversation in your house, if indeed anyone still lives with or talks to you, about how you'd compare absolutely anything to being "not remotely as stupid as Brexit".
1. Microwaving a salad - Because at least you know it’s pointless before you do it, unlike, say… a certain referendum. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
2. Trying to charge a banana with a USB cable Yes, it’s illogical, but at least it doesn’t affect trade agreements with 27 countries. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
3. Asking Siri for directions to Narnia Siri might be confused, but at least it won’t be not remotely as stupid as Brexit
4. Throwing a surprise party for your goldfish Goldfish have short memories, but still longer to live than some of those who voted to leave. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
5. Using mayonnaise as sunblock You’ll get weird looks, sure, but at least your supply chains for critical goods won’t collapse. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
6. Washing your hands with peanut butter Not effective, but still a more sensible strategy than negotiating with Brussels for three years. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
7. Declaring war on a vending machine Vending machines can be frustrating, but at least they don’t demand a backstop for Ireland. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
8. Knitting a sweater out of spaghetti It won’t keep you warm, but at least it’s not triggering a constitutional crisis. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
9. Trying to vacuum the lawn A waste of time, sure—but not on the scale of proroguing Parliament to avoid making a decision. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
10. Attempting to fly by flapping your arms really hard. This may result in a sore shoulder, but won’t result in a catastrophic drop in GDP. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
Have you become a Remainer, Casino? Welcome to the team!
It's called satire.
Vacuuming the lawn is a real thing, if it's artificial, incidentally.
Have to say this has been one of the best trading political markets in a while, the volatility makes it almost impossible not to make money even if you continually screw up.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Seems to be the announcement of 22Bn for carbon capture.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
The £22bn covers CAPEX and OPEX and is only paid out by the government as each tonne of CO2 is actually captured and stored.
So paid out over 15 years, starting when projects commence commercial operation.
Its almost literally spending £22bn on hot air.
Its inevitable that we will need gas as some part of the energy mix past 2030 so therefore miss "net zero".
So we spend £22 bn on something that tries to make it look like we will hit net zero sometime a few years after 2030 (and past the next election).
That £22 bn could be far better spent on something else.
Clearly the government agrees with your assessment that there is a role for gas fired generation post 2030, hence looking to implement a CCGT with CCS.
But not sufficiently enough for the gas to be drilled for within the British Isles. We need gas, we need coaking coal for steel, we need steel. We will now need to get these as finished products. We are deindustrialising ourselves and letting others sell us finished products because we can use an accounting trick to make us all believe the carbon emitted somewhere else in the world is better than emitting it here.
Why do pollsters try to extract quantitative results from qualitative research methods?
' On Kemi Badenoch: "Unconvincing" "As bad as Suella Braverman" "Strong, honest" "It sounds a bit corporate. There was a lack of sincerity. It needed more oomph" "It was a bit Liz Truss-y"
💥 On Tom Tugendhat: "Impressed" "He's a soldier, so he's probably a bit more down to earth" "More engaging" "Limp. Boring" "I was drawn into what he was saying... confident, articulate" "More capable compared to the bluffing and blustering of everyone else... maybe he is less self-serving'
💥 On Rob Jenrick: "Cringeworthy" "Honest" "Too animated. Too much coffee" "I liked what he said about the migration. But then he ruined it with all the cheap jokes and snides, and the fact he thought he was really fun with it put me right off" "A bit flimsy. A smug face" "That's not someone I would even want leading the school PTA"
💥 On James Cleverly: "He went on about things they didn't deliver, like on Brexit" "Good candour" "Patronising" "Arrogant" "Arrogant" "Arrogant" "Arrogant" "The worst"' https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1842161408806621353
Sorry but there's been some real utter bullshit from pollsters on this leadership campaign. We've had all this ramping of Cleverly, polls of Tory members where he inexplicably comes top and wins all head to heads.
Now that Cleverly has basically flushed his own campaign, suddenly a focus group is being touted that Tugendhat is the people's champion? His speech was widely panned as being low energy tripe. It was Cleverly who had the 'Cleggasm' speech, not Tug-end, and this just smacks of desperately ramping the only viable wet left in the contest.
Have to say this has been one of the best trading political markets in a while, the volatility makes it almost impossible not to make money even if you continually screw up.
I don't bet on events which I cannot (try to) predict, I don't bet online, and I don't bet on exchange betting.
Pause
But apart from that, I'm pretty sure I could screw it up...
Albania feels like the most unEuropean place I’ve ever been in Europe. There are minarets. The women look like Iranians. The music is half Arabic. The mountains are wreathed in fog but there are palm trees
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Seems to be the announcement of 22Bn for carbon capture.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
The £22bn covers CAPEX and OPEX and is only paid out by the government as each tonne of CO2 is actually captured and stored.
So paid out over 15 years, starting when projects commence commercial operation.
Its almost literally spending £22bn on hot air.
Its inevitable that we will need gas as some part of the energy mix past 2030 so therefore miss "net zero".
So we spend £22 bn on something that tries to make it look like we will hit net zero sometime a few years after 2030 (and past the next election).
That £22 bn could be far better spent on something else.
Clearly the government agrees with your assessment that there is a role for gas fired generation post 2030, hence looking to implement a CCGT with CCS.
Let's see if they think that when this government get their heads round what tidal can actually deliver.
I do know that Charles Hendry, who wrote the brilliant independent report on tidal lagoon power stations, has already met with Ed Milband and is having a formal briefing with him later this month.
Have decided not to think about the chagos islands surrender as it is so distressingly stupid it is physically painful
Not remotely as stupid as Brexit
You think it was stupid to implement the biggest vote for anything in the country's history?
If you do, just say so. At least you'd be logical, if not a democrat.
If the Brexit vote had been thwarted, I thought it through and it was probably the only time in my life I had every contemplated violence, I mean really paramilitary stuff. Whether I would have actually carried it out past a thought process, I dont know. The government's entire right to exist would have vanished, I would have seen them as nothing more than an occupying force that needed resistance.
I was no puritan on the matter of Brexit, I voted to leave with a heavy heart, and considered the moral obligation to carry out the will of the British people was limited to no longer being a member of the EU, as the ballot paper said. After that, whether we remained in single market or whatever, as far as democratic mandate was just a detail. We left, the mandate was fulfilled. Even if Starmer now tried to re-enter the EU, or re-enter the single market. It is not a betrayal. The instruction was carried out.
But. I wonder if I was alone in thinking for the first time about extreme political violence.
Albania feels like the most unEuropean place I’ve ever been in Europe. There are minarets. The women look like Iranians. The music is half Arabic. The mountains are wreathed in fog but there are palm trees
Sorry but there's been some real utter bullshit from pollsters on this leadership campaign. We've had all this ramping of Cleverly, polls of Tory members where he inexplicably comes top and wins all head to heads.
Now that Cleverly has basically flushed his own campaign, suddenly a focus group is being touted that Tugendhat is the people's champion? His speech was widely panned as being low energy tripe. It was Cleverly who had the 'Cleggasm' speech, not Tug-end, and this just smacks of desperately ramping the only viable wet left in the contest.
It does all feel like a Centrist Dad ramping exercise.
Albania feels like the most unEuropean place I’ve ever been in Europe. There are minarets. The women look like Iranians. The music is half Arabic. The mountains are wreathed in fog but there are palm trees
It should obviously be in the Caucasus
If you go to the far South, though, as mentioned, it feels Greek. Europe and the Middle East in one country.
Where does on start with that (it's the Telegrunt, btw)?
"20 ex-MPs announce backing of James Cleverly for leader
Twenty ex-MPs who lost their seats at the 2024 general election have announced that they are backing James Cleverly as leader of the Conservatives.
Former Tory colleagues have said that the party does “ not have time for a leader to learn on the job” and that the shadow home secretary was the right person to “provide the conservative solutions”.
Among the 20 is Giles Watling, who lost his Clacton seat to Nigel Farage of Reform UK in July.
Surprised a couple of utterly none political friends have picked up on the £22bn investment in the north, in a very positive way.
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
Which investment is that Kurt? Do you have a link? (Apologies if this is big news I'm somehow missing but I can't see it!)
Seems to be the announcement of 22Bn for carbon capture.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
The £22bn covers CAPEX and OPEX and is only paid out by the government as each tonne of CO2 is actually captured and stored.
So paid out over 15 years, starting when projects commence commercial operation.
Its almost literally spending £22bn on hot air.
Its inevitable that we will need gas as some part of the energy mix past 2030 so therefore miss "net zero".
So we spend £22 bn on something that tries to make it look like we will hit net zero sometime a few years after 2030 (and past the next election).
That £22 bn could be far better spent on something else.
Clearly the government agrees with your assessment that there is a role for gas fired generation post 2030, hence looking to implement a CCGT with CCS.
Let's see if they think that when this government get their heads round what tidal can actually deliver.
I do know that Charles Hendry, who wrote the brilliant independent report on tidal lagoon power stations, has already met with Ed Milband and is having a formal briefing with him later this month.
The biggest problem, apart from that bullshit report that circulates in government about lagoons, is the timescale. Start a project and it will be completed beyond the next election. So you get all the negative stuff from the antis - environmental and other - this cycle....
The advantage of future carbon sequestration credits is that they involve spending no money now. Nor are they directly linked to actually doing anything. So a win, win.
The Iranians are threatening to destroy Israel's entire energy infrastructure if they make "a mistake", according to various reports in the last few hours. Grim times.
How?!
The more belligerent the Iranian regime's rhetoric, the more in trouble they know they are in.
I assume Leon means how would Iran destroy Israel's energy infrastructure - which is a good question because if their last attack was anything to go by, they don't have the technology you'd need to (a) be precise enough and (b) evade the defences. But they presumably *do* know the vulnerability of their own key facilities.
Sorry but there's been some real utter bullshit from pollsters on this leadership campaign. We've had all this ramping of Cleverly, polls of Tory members where he inexplicably comes top and wins all head to heads.
Now that Cleverly has basically flushed his own campaign, suddenly a focus group is being touted that Tugendhat is the people's champion? His speech was widely panned as being low energy tripe. It was Cleverly who had the 'Cleggasm' speech, not Tug-end, and this just smacks of desperately ramping the only viable wet left in the contest.
Surely, in the context of would-be-leader speeches at Tory conferences, the term should be 'Cumeron', not 'Cleggasm'?
Albania feels like the most unEuropean place I’ve ever been in Europe. There are minarets. The women look like Iranians. The music is half Arabic. The mountains are wreathed in fog but there are palm trees
It should obviously be in the Caucasus
And the names look, on paper, like Chinese ones to the untutored eye. Such as Nexhmije Xhuglini.
Albania feels like the most unEuropean place I’ve ever been in Europe. There are minarets. The women look like Iranians. The music is half Arabic. The mountains are wreathed in fog but there are palm trees
It should obviously be in the Caucasus
If you go to the far South, though, as mentioned, it feels Greek. Europe and the Middle East in one country.
Skopje is a bit similar.
We’re an hour from crossing the kosovan frontier
I don’t know why I take childish joy in crossing land borders but I do. There is no pleasure in a passport queue at an airport, but a manned border post in the misty mountains… oooh
Comments
(Challenger has entered the chat)
Woking just borrowed a huge amount of money for a building project that went financially pearshaped. And whilst the party responsible has been voted out of office, their sucessors are left holding the impossible baby.
(But in general council finances are yet another thing where the 2019-24 government did just enough to stop the sewage pipe exploding before they left office.)
Expect if a boat load of similar capital investment projects can be delivered in the next five years, especially in the poorest of areas, the country and politics could be rather different compared to what people expect today.
Feed a starving population and they'll be grateful, much of the population has been starved of investment for generations.
However I’m not sure it will impact voters. Do they care? They might care about really bad deals that cost us money and give away vast assets even if they don’t know what an atoll is
The latest jobs report showed unemployment down to 4.1% . The forecast was an increase to 4.3% .
Non-farm payrolls came in at 254,000 well above the forecast of 130,000.
It is, after all, a very large commitment of money to something of negligible value. The opportunity cost of not spending the money productively is pretty large, when we are so constrained in what we can borrow to invest.
EDIT: Oh, the carbon capture thing? Oh.
It will buy some nice offices etc.
There might even be money left over to spend on actually capturing carbon. But that’s a frivolity, really.
https://youtu.be/f4MkCJiDoNk?si=Ync6M5xfcOXUWgPp
A thought experiment for you. Imagine we halved the size of the rental sector by law, from Jan 1st 2025. Done at random - Landlords had to toss a coin to determine if they had to sell up or not.
What would happen? A fire-sale of current rental properties. Property prices would drop, first time buyers ready to go with a deposit of any size would be off to the races. But quite a few of those first time buyers wouldn't be existing tenants - they would have been living with their parents, moving out of 3 bed houses turned into HMOs for 5 couples, or even just new graduates who hadn't spunked their whole student loan on beer and overpriced accommodation.
Which means that the existing tenants who happen to be at the bottom of the pile and can't buy (say a bit of credit card debt, on benefits) are going to looking for another property to rent - except these will be like gold dust, as we've just halved supply. And what, children, do the laws of supply and demand suggest would happen to the price of something with very inelastic demand, when you've just halved supply? Ah, yes, the market clearing price of that something just got a whole lot more expensive.
So what has our policy done? Shafted some landlords, benefited others (if you don't have to sell, your rental is now earning more without you lifting a finger), massively benefited first time buyers and utterly done over the poorest renters who can't afford to buy.
The EPC rules do exactly the same, except Landlords can buy their way out if they want to.
Some of those responsible needed to suffer consequences greater than just being ejected from office.
Pick any two.
Who do you think Woking council owe money to ?
They owe the majority of the money to central government, £1.3bn alone to the Public Works Loan Board (as was).
So going bankrupt and defaulting on their debt moves the cost from the local taxpayer to the national taxpayer.
Back in the day elected Liverpool councillors were surcharged.
A decade ago the taxpayers alliance was boasting about how marvellous Woking was, how they had slashed staff, embraced the private sector etc
The Singapore of Surrey we were told.
Hows that looking now ?
Possibly both.
Merry Christmas!
As I recall, he was rather shocked at the suggestion of letting the council tax payers get stung like that.
The power of his talking points is declining. Meanwhile he still can't hold a line on abortion for an entire interview, his criminal conduct in the lead up to Jan 6th has been laid bare by Smith's motion and he seems ever more dottled in his speeches.
And yet, its still dangerously close.
Perhaps it should be paired with a policy to free up those 26 million spare bedrooms? Tax those millionaire pensioners and boomers for each spare bedroom until the market reaches a better equilibrium. Start with a LVT.
And sometimes they aren't very well managed, too.
They can borrow freely against capital projects, but are supposed to demonstrate that such borrowing is prudent.
https://www.dmo.gov.uk/responsibilities/local-authority-lending/about-pwlb-lending/
...Major local authorities (e.g. metropolitan, borough, county, city and combined authorities) may take out PWLB loans. Since 2004, under the prudential regime, major local authorities are responsible for their own financial decision making. They are free to finance capital projects by borrowing, provided they can afford to service their debts out of their revenues. In deciding how much debt is affordable, major local authorities are required by law to "have regard" to the Prudential Code, published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), but have discretion to decide how to fulfil this statutory requirement.
Decisions over which capital projects to pursue and whether to borrow for these investments are the responsibility of the elected Council of each local authority, who are accountable to their electorates. Local authorities are free to borrow so long as the finance director is satisfied that they are acting in line with statute and can afford to repay the loan. The PWLB is a non-discretionary lender: it does not ask the purpose of a loan, as this would duplicate the decision-making structures of the individual local authorities...
And the Audit Commission, which used to keep an eye on what councils were up to, got nixed by the 2010-15 government.
All councils are heading towards bankruptcy, and if they make a mistake they reach the end point more quickly than the other councils.
Woking (and they weren't the only ones) made colossal property development bets that have gone badly, badly wrong.
Other disasters (Thurrock) involve Solar farms, and (Warrington) energy companies.
Some of this was regeneration, much was highly speculative bets that were going to be profitable and reduce the impact of cuts to local government spending.
All of these are outside what should be the scope of local councils and miles outside the scope of their capability.
Labour is at unprecedented levels of unpopularity. It’s almost Truss-like. You cannot call this a “honeymoon”. lol
And we’ve yet to see if Chagos harms them further
I can just imagine conversation in your house, if indeed anyone still lives with or talks to you, about how you'd compare absolutely anything to being "not remotely as stupid as Brexit".
1. Microwaving a salad - Because at least you know it’s pointless before you do it, unlike, say… a certain referendum. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
2. Trying to charge a banana with a USB cable
Yes, it’s illogical, but at least it doesn’t affect trade agreements with 27 countries. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
3. Asking Siri for directions to Narnia
Siri might be confused, but at least it won’t be not remotely as stupid as Brexit
4. Throwing a surprise party for your goldfish
Goldfish have short memories, but still longer to live than some of those who voted to leave. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
5. Using mayonnaise as sunblock
You’ll get weird looks, sure, but at least your supply chains for critical goods won’t collapse. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
6. Washing your hands with peanut butter
Not effective, but still a more sensible strategy than negotiating with Brussels for three years. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
7. Declaring war on a vending machine
Vending machines can be frustrating, but at least they don’t demand a backstop for Ireland. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
8. Knitting a sweater out of spaghetti
It won’t keep you warm, but at least it’s not triggering a constitutional crisis. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
9. Trying to vacuum the lawn
A waste of time, sure—but not on the scale of proroguing Parliament to avoid making a decision. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
10. Attempting to fly by flapping your arms really hard. This may result in a sore shoulder, but won’t result in a catastrophic drop in GDP. Not remotely as stupid as Brexit.
So paid out over 15 years, starting when projects commence commercial operation.
Telegraph
All of these are outside what should be the scope of local councils and miles outside the scope of their capability.
Which is exactly why they managed to lose their shirts. And the tax payers shirts.
Most tales of failing ventures go like this
1) it all looked kinda great
2) but there were, in fact structural problems.
3) the tide went out, and the lack go swimming trunks became apparent. Often the tide goes out quite fast.
Note that solar, energy and property is where a lot of people are making lots of money. Which is why they are good areas for sharks to feed on the gullible.
You would, indeed, be a fool to spend £14k on that kind of benefit, but I'd be surprised if that cost/benefit ratio exists outside a very few niche properties.
Declaring war on vending machines is bat shit? What are you, some kind of Communist Prevert?
(Runs away, cackling)
(b) "refuses to rule out" is a typical trick of journalists and rival politicians. It usually just means that the person concerned happened not to comment on the topic at hand. You're old enough to know this by now. The Telegraph report at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/04/politics-latest-news-starmer-labour-chagos-security/ goes on to say, "A spokesman for No10 told GB News: “Chagos does not change our policy or approach to other overseas territories.”" That statement is nothing to get excited about.
https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1841985264421400925
Far from being a bad thing (as you no doubt think) that fleet sales make 75% of Electric vehicle sales, its a positive.
It also means a nice slug of cheap(er) EV cars in 3 years when those company cars are replaced.
It would be peverse if Mrs Goggins of Greendale was buying an electric car to do a once weekly trip to the shop.
Meanwhile the LDs back Starmer on the Chagos Islands
'Sir Ed Davey has signalled that he supports the Government’s decision to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, amid a backlash from the Conservatives.
The Liberal Democrat leader said people “need to realise that this had to be done” for the UK to follow international law.
He told PA news agency: “I have seen the Conservatives complaining about it but they started all the talks. I think it was James Cleverly when he was foreign secretary.”
Referring to the International Court of Justice’s ruling on the matter, the Lib Dem leader said: “People need to realise that this had to be done for us to follow the law.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/04/politics-latest-news-starmer-labour-chagos-security/
@jamesjohnson252
NEW: @JLPartnersPolls focus group for
@bbc5live with lost Tory voters
We showed the group clips of the main contenders' Conference speeches
At the end of the group, we asked who had the best chance of winning them back. The answers:
"Rob"
"Tom"
"Tom"
"Tom"
"Tom"
"Tom"
"Rob"
https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1842161408806621353
2028: "Infrastructure" starts appearing on the Egmont islands...
But, that's a far cry from plunging into property development, where the sharks just see you coming.
Its inevitable that we will need gas as some part of the energy mix past 2030 so therefore miss "net zero".
So we spend £22 bn on something that tries to make it look like we will hit net zero sometime a few years after 2030 (and past the next election).
That £22 bn could be far better spent on something else.
Where does on start with that (it's the Telegrunt, btw)?
"20 ex-MPs announce backing of James Cleverly for leader
Twenty ex-MPs who lost their seats at the 2024 general election have announced that they are backing James Cleverly as leader of the Conservatives.
Former Tory colleagues have said that the party does “ not have time for a leader to learn on the job” and that the shadow home secretary was the right person to “provide the conservative solutions”.
Among the 20 is Giles Watling, who lost his Clacton seat to Nigel Farage of Reform UK in July.
He said: “I know better than anyone about the threat our Party is facing from Reform."
https://archive.ph/C5BLT#selection-2783.0-2795.50
So when the finances were going awry there's only so much they could do via cloth-cutting - and raising taxes had been made deliberately difficult. If I am badly in debt I can drastically cut my outgoings, maybe ask for a pay rise or apply for jobs that would boost my income. Councils find it far more difficult to do the equivalent.
Woking and others' speculation was part of that as to avoid huge unpopular cuts to services people expect, but aren't legally required to provide, like leisure facilities, they made risky investments in the hope they were a win-win by giving them additional income streams and regenerating areas that needed investment. So could avoid those cuts.
In Woking's case that went spectacularly wrong, as an attempt to transform the town centre that was already ambitious to the point of being misguided, ran into the pandemic and became a financial catastrophe. So the debts became huge, with little to show for it - and with the same problems of tax and spend as before. So bankruptcy becomes fairly inevitable as there's really no way to function as a council and service the debts racked up by the previous Tory council.
They aren't, yet. (Though China is, which is why EVs are now half the new car market over there.)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13924647/BORIS-JOHNSON-fear-Falklands-Starmer-exposed-spineless-Leftie-surrenderist-fraud.html
A modern remake of Postman Pat would have much more exciting story lines.
The problem is that there are too few houses/too many people. All that mucking around with regs for landlords does is swing the pendulum a bit between renters and homeowners - it won't stop almost everyone's income being gobbled up by housing.
The fact that the people the EPC rules are meant to help are actually going to be done over by them is a minor sideshow in the big picture, although pretty grim if your a tenant not in a position to buy.
The only real fix for any of this is more houses (planning easier to get, dial down building regs) and less people (net zero migration).
Grim times.
The stormy sky is a demonic dark grey and several nuns are eating sandwiches
If you do, just say so. At least you'd be logical, if not a democrat.
https://x.com/avorwarts/status/1842193811964829882?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
The convicted Sub Post Mistress concocts an elaborate scheme to get the prison guards, the prison governor and, eventually, the Post Office board involved in a fraud. While in prison.
Having dug a tunnel behind a huge poster of Mr Darcy, she escapes to freedom, taking all the money in the fraud. And leaving enough evidence to get everyone arrested.
We need gas, we need coaking coal for steel, we need steel. We will now need to get these as finished products. We are deindustrialising ourselves and letting others sell us finished products because we can use an accounting trick to make us all believe the carbon emitted somewhere else in the world is better than emitting it here.
"Unconvincing"
"As bad as Suella Braverman"
"Strong, honest"
"It sounds a bit corporate. There was a lack of sincerity. It needed more oomph"
"It was a bit Liz Truss-y"
💥 On Tom Tugendhat:
"Impressed"
"He's a soldier, so he's probably a bit more down to earth"
"More engaging"
"Limp. Boring"
"I was drawn into what he was saying... confident, articulate"
"More capable compared to the bluffing and blustering of everyone else... maybe he is less self-serving'
💥 On Rob Jenrick:
"Cringeworthy"
"Honest"
"Too animated. Too much coffee"
"I liked what he said about the migration. But then he ruined it with all the cheap jokes and snides, and the fact he thought he was really fun with it put me right off"
"A bit flimsy. A smug face"
"That's not someone I would even want leading the school PTA"
💥 On James Cleverly:
"He went on about things they didn't deliver, like on Brexit"
"Good candour"
"Patronising"
"Arrogant"
"Arrogant"
"Arrogant"
"Arrogant"
"The worst"'
https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1842161408806621353
Now that Cleverly has basically flushed his own campaign, suddenly a focus group is being touted that Tugendhat is the people's champion? His speech was widely panned as being low energy tripe. It was Cleverly who had the 'Cleggasm' speech, not Tug-end, and this just smacks of desperately ramping the only viable wet left in the contest.
Pause
But apart from that, I'm pretty sure I could screw it up...
It should obviously be in the Caucasus
I do know that Charles Hendry, who wrote the brilliant independent report on tidal lagoon power stations, has already met with Ed Milband and is having a formal briefing with him later this month.
https://x.com/guardian/status/1842160173269332107
I was no puritan on the matter of Brexit, I voted to leave with a heavy heart, and considered the moral obligation to carry out the will of the British people was limited to no longer being a member of the EU, as the ballot paper said. After that, whether we remained in single market or whatever, as far as democratic mandate was just a detail. We left, the mandate was fulfilled. Even if Starmer now tried to re-enter the EU, or re-enter the single market. It is not a betrayal. The instruction was carried out.
But. I wonder if I was alone in thinking for the first time about extreme political violence.
Skopje is a bit similar.
The advantage of future carbon sequestration credits is that they involve spending no money now. Nor are they directly linked to actually doing anything. So a win, win.
I don’t know why I take childish joy in crossing land borders but I do. There is no pleasure in a passport queue at an airport, but a manned border post in the misty mountains… oooh