Liz Truss would be proud – politicalbetting.com

System

Liz Truss would be proud – politicalbetting.com

Markets were sanguine about the Budget when @RachelReevesMP was delivering it. But now investors are absorbing the actual details and numbers, they're considerably less sanguine.UK government cost of borrowing climbing…? pic.twitter.com/0VZYQAaDAJ

Read the full story here

Alanbrooke

Reckless Rachel strikes again

FrancisUrquhart

I have a feeling this won't be the end of the tax rises.

rottenborough

FPT:

A1 dualing north of Morpeth has become like waiting for Godot.

MaxPB

FrancisUrquhart said:

I have a feeling this won't be the end of the tax rises.

They can't growth is already too low, any more tax rises and tax from annual growth will drop more than the new taxes will raise.

MaxPB

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

SouthamObserver

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

FrancisUrquhart

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I have a feeling this won't be the end of the tax rises.

They can't growth is already too low, any more tax rises and tax from annual growth will drop more than the new taxes will raise.

You see the mistake you are making there is thinking logically ;-)

WhisperingOracle

As I mentioned before, the Tories immediately bullied the Green New Deal policy out of thus first budget when Miliband announced it, and I think they may want to bring back part of this part of publicly pro-growth policy.

The.Green Hydrogen plans are promising, but 22 billion for the NHS on the one side, and no pro-growth Green Deal on the other, may not be the right balance, and what they might change.

david_herdson

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

Looks more like up 0.15% since Reeves started her Budget statement, or 0.2% from about when she sat down.

Not exactly a crisis but equally, not trivial.

Big_G_NorthWales

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

The IFS said that the enormous amount to spend on the NHS and Education is front loaded and doubt it is feasible to spend so much nor improve eficiency and leaves a shortfall for years 3 onwards

biggles

david_herdson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

Looks more like up 0.15% since Reeves started her Budget statement, or 0.2% from about when she sat down.

Not exactly a crisis but equally, not trivial.

Hopefully the insurance market has learnt from Truss and was better prepared.

WhisperingOracle

Part of this *plan* for publicly pro-growth policy, it should ofcourse say below.

It was originally planned as a critical part of this first budget, for about three years

MaxPB

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

I count 19bp which is a non-trivial rise. Tomorrow will be the key test from the markets as investors digest all of the OBR numbers this evening and stick them into models etc...

Alanbrooke

BoJo said fk business, Reeves actually did it.

williamglenn

biggles said:

david_herdson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

Looks more like up 0.15% since Reeves started her Budget statement, or 0.2% from about when she sat down.

Not exactly a crisis but equally, not trivial.

Hopefully the insurance market has learnt from Truss and was better prepared.

It's a good thing they cancelled the winter fuel payments or we really would be in trouble.

TimS

I don't think Gilt yields are going to be a big story. They're up a bit today because the announcements imply a bit more bond issuance than previously expected, but now settling down again. You'd need wild swings for that to be the thing the media seize on.

The focus is going to be on the impact of the BPR/APR changes, the NI threshold reduction and the bizarre decision not to unfreeze fuel duty. Plus the pretty stingy public spending commitments which I'm not sure are enough to get services properly improving again.

Interesting, and again a little surprising, that there were no changes on tax treatment of pension contributions.

Anabobazina

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

Seems a bit unlikely for a couple of the states, but interesting set of polls.

Presidential Polling Leads:

MN: D +10
VA: D +8
NH: D +7
MI: D +5
NV: D +4
WI: D +3
PA: D +1

NC: R +2
TX: R +4
AZ: R +4
GA: R +5
FL: R +6
OH: R +7

CCES/YouGov / October 25, 2024
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1851397569206947900

Doesn't she win on those numbers?

Yes

state_go_away

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

yes a true seasonal horror !

SouthamObserver

david_herdson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

Looks more like up 0.15% since Reeves started her Budget statement, or 0.2% from about when she sat down.

Not exactly a crisis but equally, not trivial.

It's moving around a bit but the last I looked it was up 0.02% on the day.

david_herdson

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

Barnesian

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

Seems a bit unlikely for a couple of the states, but interesting set of polls.

Presidential Polling Leads:

MN: D +10
VA: D +8
NH: D +7
MI: D +5
NV: D +4
WI: D +3
PA: D +1

NC: R +2
TX: R +4
AZ: R +4
GA: R +5
FL: R +6
OH: R +7

CCES/YouGov / October 25, 2024
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1851397569206947900

Doesn't she win on those numbers?

Yes - 276:262

Nigelb

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

A1 dualling north of Morpeth binned.

I don't understand why they aren't building this sort of infrastructure.

That's what Keir said when Rishi was PM.

Alanbrooke

So not much by way of housebulding then.

Stuartinromford

david_herdson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

Looks more like up 0.15% since Reeves started her Budget statement, or 0.2% from about when she sat down.

Not exactly a crisis but equally, not trivial.

The Trusstershambles was about 0.25% on the day, and another 0.25% after the "you ain't seen nothing yet" interviews at the weekend, wasn't it? So not good, but not (yet) Trusslike.

But it's much easier to generate growth if you have tax cuts based on phoney baloney spending plans.

MaxPB

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

Nigelb

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

The IFS said that the enormous amount to spend on the NHS and Education is front loaded and doubt it is feasible to spend so much nor improve eficiency and leaves a shortfall for years 3 onwards

Is the Education money in expectation of all the private school kids transferring ?

RobD

Stuartinromford said:

david_herdson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

Looks more like up 0.15% since Reeves started her Budget statement, or 0.2% from about when she sat down.

Not exactly a crisis but equally, not trivial.

The Trusstershambles was about 0.25% on the day, and another 0.25% after the "you ain't seen nothing yet" interviews at the weekend, wasn't it? So not good, but not (yet) Trusslike.

But it's much easier to generate growth if you have tax cuts based on phoney baloney spending plans.

So 4/5th of a Truss.

Nigelb

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

And largely useless in economic terms.

Which wouldn't be the case for (eg) grid or offshore wind investment.

state_go_away

TimS said:

I don't think Gilt yields are going to be a big story. They're up a bit today because the announcements imply a bit more bond issuance than previously expected, but now settling down again. You'd need wild swings for that to be the thing the media seize on.

The focus is going to be on the impact of the BPR/APR changes, the NI threshold reduction and the bizarre decision not to unfreeze fuel duty. Plus the pretty stingy public spending commitments which I'm not sure are enough to get services properly improving again.

Interesting, and again a little surprising, that there were no changes on tax treatment of pension contributions.

the APR relief curtailment is really a big thing in terms of farming passing and investing to pass on farms down the generations - Anyone who knows the farming community will see that it is highly beneficial for farms to be passed down generations helping farmers to invest and nurture for the long term land

FrancisUrquhart

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

The IFS said that the enormous amount to spend on the NHS and Education is front loaded and doubt it is feasible to spend so much nor improve eficiency and leaves a shortfall for years 3 onwards

This is a real problem, getting the balance and time of deployment right. Just turning the taps on full blast often results in significant wastage / inefficient spending. See startups who get too big a funding round or companies that float without a solid plan....

Anabobazina

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

Looks more like up 0.15% since Reeves started her Budget statement, or 0.2% from about when she sat down.

Not exactly a crisis but equally, not trivial.

It's moving around a bit but the last I looked it was up 0.02% on the day.

If people are discussing 10-year UK gilts they are trading lower now than when the exchange opened this morning as far as I can see? Maybe I am looking at the wrong thing?

https://markets.ft.com/data/bonds/tearsheet/summary?s=UK10YG

Andy_JS

rottenborough said:

FPT:

A1 dualing north of Morpeth has become like waiting for Godot.

Why not get a private company to do it return for something, like advertising? (Not too distracting, obviously).

carnforth

Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho reckons Nuclear announcements were missing:

"I suspect this won’t get the coverage it’s due.

We now know that Sizewell C/SMRs are delayed. Nothing on AMRs or our £200mil plans to make the UK the first commercial producer of advanced nuclear fuel.

The go-slow on nuclear is confirmed. Another disaster for growth."

Barnesian

AIM market up 4% since the budget statement. The worst didn't happen.

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

So not much by way of housebulding then.

No.
Unless they do a massive red tape clearance and/or land grab PDQ, that's a bust.

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

So not much by way of housebulding then.

No.
Unless they do a massive red tape clearance and/or land grab PDQ, that's a bust.

A lawyer remove laws ?

Good to see you havent lost your sense of humour

biggles

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

The IFS said that the enormous amount to spend on the NHS and Education is front loaded and doubt it is feasible to spend so much nor improve eficiency and leaves a shortfall for years 3 onwards

This is a real problem, getting the balance and time of deployment right. Just turning the taps on full blast often results in significant wastage / inefficient spending. See startups who get too big a funding round or companies that float without a solid plan....

Yes, on more than one occasion I have had to try and talk someone out of increasing my budget at a rate I couldn’t absorb it. Expanding productively is hard.

Barnesian

state_go_away said:

TimS said:

I don't think Gilt yields are going to be a big story. They're up a bit today because the announcements imply a bit more bond issuance than previously expected, but now settling down again. You'd need wild swings for that to be the thing the media seize on.

The focus is going to be on the impact of the BPR/APR changes, the NI threshold reduction and the bizarre decision not to unfreeze fuel duty. Plus the pretty stingy public spending commitments which I'm not sure are enough to get services properly improving again.

Interesting, and again a little surprising, that there were no changes on tax treatment of pension contributions.

the APR relief curtailment is really a big thing in terms of farming passing and investing to pass on farms down the generations - Anyone who knows the farming community will see that it is highly beneficial for farms to be passed down generations helping farmers to invest and nurture for the long term land

Why not put them into trust and live seven years?

Malmesbury

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

And largely useless in economic terms.

Which wouldn't be the case for (eg) grid or offshore wind investment.

Green Hydrogen is the solution that The System decided on, long ago. Despite enormous investment, it has never delivered.

Despite it being a Proper Policy - it involves all the Proper Stakeholders (oil giants, gas companies etc).

MaxPB

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

So not much by way of housebulding then.

No.
Unless they do a massive red tape clearance and/or land grab PDQ, that's a bust.

Labour are never going to cut red tape, it's just not in their nature. Especially not Starmer.

Tim_in_Ruislip

Dropped back a bit now.

The long shadow of Truss/Kwarteng....

The country and, particularly, the conservative party owe Hunt and Sunak a lot for stabilising things back in '22.

Looks to me like Reeves broadly commands the confidence of the markets, for which we should all be grateful.

Stuartinromford

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

The IFS said that the enormous amount to spend on the NHS and Education is front loaded and doubt it is feasible to spend so much nor improve eficiency and leaves a shortfall for years 3 onwards

Depends on how it is spent. If it's dealing with the repairs backlog (the one that means I can only open three windows out of five for example), that might be pretty sensible.

Anabobazina

Tim_in_Ruislip said:

Dropped back a bit now.

The long shadow of Truss/Kwarteng....

The country and, particularly, the conservative party owe Hunt and Sunak a lot for stabilising things back in '22.

Looks to me like Reeves broadly commands the confidence of the markets, for which we should all be grateful.

There was a lot of talking Britain down from the desperate PB Tories on the last thread, and a good chunk on this one.

Thankfully the markets are of a calmer constituency.

FrancisUrquhart

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is now holding a press conference to discuss its forecasts surrounding the Budget.

Reeves has lifted National Insurance Contributions by employers but the OBR reckons that it will be workers who end up paying the price.

OBR member David Miles says: "It seems highly likely that it will have an impact on the level of wages that firms who are facing higher taxes on employing people will pay."

He said that over time, it means wages will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

MaxPB

Tim_in_Ruislip said:

Dropped back a bit now.

The long shadow of Truss/Kwarteng....

The country and, particularly, the conservative party owe Hunt and Sunak a lot for stabilising things back in '22.

Looks to me like Reeves broadly commands the confidence of the markets, for which we should all be grateful.

I think we need to wait until tomorrow before making the final judgement.

Pulpstar

There's a 15 bp difference in the current reported 10 yr gilt between FT and Marketwatch.

https://markets.ft.com/data/bonds/tearsheet/summary?s=UK10YG

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmbmkgb-10y?countrycode=bx

Anyone know which one is closer to being correct ?

Pulpstar

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is now holding a press conference to discuss its forecasts surrounding the Budget.

Reeves has lifted National Insurance Contributions by employers but the OBR reckons that it will be workers who end up paying the price.

OBR member David Miles says: "It seems highly likely that it will have an impact on the level of wages that firms who are facing higher taxes on employing people will pay."

He said that over time, it means wages will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

Fair play to the OBR, clearly no Labour patsies.

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

There's a 15 bp difference in the current reported 10 yr gilt between FT and Marketwatch.

https://markets.ft.com/data/bonds/tearsheet/summary?s=UK10YG

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmbmkgb-10y?countrycode=bx

Anyone know which one is closer to being correct ?

Marketwatch.

Tim_in_Ruislip

Pulpstar said:

There's a 15 bp difference in the current reported 10 yr gilt between FT and Marketwatch.

https://markets.ft.com/data/bonds/tearsheet/summary?s=UK10YG

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmbmkgb-10y?countrycode=bx

Anyone know which one is closer to being correct ?

Is it to do with the coupon?

https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/TVC-GB10Y/ is the one I load up for reference.

noneoftheabove

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is now holding a press conference to discuss its forecasts surrounding the Budget.

Reeves has lifted National Insurance Contributions by employers but the OBR reckons that it will be workers who end up paying the price.

OBR member David Miles says: "It seems highly likely that it will have an impact on the level of wages that firms who are facing higher taxes on employing people will pay."

He said that over time, it means wages will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

The realistic comparison is post tax income if we had raised income tax instead. I suspect it makes little difference although would vary by pay level.

We were going to have to raise something.

kamski

Barnesian said:

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

Seems a bit unlikely for a couple of the states, but interesting set of polls.

Presidential Polling Leads:

MN: D +10
VA: D +8
NH: D +7
MI: D +5
NV: D +4
WI: D +3
PA: D +1

NC: R +2
TX: R +4
AZ: R +4
GA: R +5
FL: R +6
OH: R +7

CCES/YouGov / October 25, 2024
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1851397569206947900

Doesn't she win on those numbers?

Yes - 276:262

She could afford to lose Nevada of the ones she's leading in that poll, but nothing else.

JosiasJessop

In other news, this picture from Valencia in Spain is quite horrific (shows a narrow street blocked with a jumble of cars after the flooding).

https://x.com/SuperViiral/status/1851557536807170275

Anabobazina

MaxPB said:

Tim_in_Ruislip said:

Dropped back a bit now.

The long shadow of Truss/Kwarteng....

The country and, particularly, the conservative party owe Hunt and Sunak a lot for stabilising things back in '22.

Looks to me like Reeves broadly commands the confidence of the markets, for which we should all be grateful.

I think we need to wait until tomorrow before making the final judgement.

You weren’t saying that earlier…

Nigelb

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

So not much by way of housebulding then.

No.
Unless they do a massive red tape clearance and/or land grab PDQ, that's a bust.

Labour are never going to cut red tape, it's just not in their nature. Especially not Starmer.

Yes, it's unlikely.
But it's a necessary part of having a better functioning economy, and it's what they promised.

I'd rather they were damned for failing to deliver, rather than give them a pass in advance for meeting (low) expectations.

MaxPB

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Tim_in_Ruislip said:

Dropped back a bit now.

The long shadow of Truss/Kwarteng....

The country and, particularly, the conservative party owe Hunt and Sunak a lot for stabilising things back in '22.

Looks to me like Reeves broadly commands the confidence of the markets, for which we should all be grateful.

I think we need to wait until tomorrow before making the final judgement.

You weren’t saying that earlier…

Literally at half past three I said the same https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5008935/#Comment_5008935

Gallowgate

rottenborough said:

FPT:

A1 dualing north of Morpeth has become like waiting for Godot.

Annoying

FrancisUrquhart

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is now holding a press conference to discuss its forecasts surrounding the Budget.

Reeves has lifted National Insurance Contributions by employers but the OBR reckons that it will be workers who end up paying the price.

OBR member David Miles says: "It seems highly likely that it will have an impact on the level of wages that firms who are facing higher taxes on employing people will pay."

He said that over time, it means wages will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

The realistic comparison is post tax income if we had raised income tax instead. I suspect it makes little difference although would vary by pay level.

We were going to have to raise something.

The difference being one is directly a tax on jobs, the other is a tax on people earning from their job. IMO, the best system is one that does as much as possible to encourage growth in companies, and then taxes company profits and individual earnings, rather than turn-over taxes.

Nigelb

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

So not much by way of housebulding then.

No.
Unless they do a massive red tape clearance and/or land grab PDQ, that's a bust.

Labour are never going to cut red tape, it's just not in their nature. Especially not Starmer.

Yes, it's unlikely.
But it's a necessary part of having a better functioning economy, and it's what they promised.

I'd rather they were damned for failing to deliver, rather than give them a pass in advance for meeting (low) expectations.

The Tories failed miserably in this respect, too.
Which is part of the reason they got turfed out.

MaxPB

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

So not much by way of housebulding then.

No.
Unless they do a massive red tape clearance and/or land grab PDQ, that's a bust.

Labour are never going to cut red tape, it's just not in their nature. Especially not Starmer.

Yes, it's unlikely.
But it's a necessary part of having a better functioning economy, and it's what they promised.

I'd rather they were damned for failing to deliver, rather than give them a pass in advance for meeting (low) expectations.

I agree and I had hoped that by now the planning revolution would be being drawn up and heading towards the HoC. They have such a huge majority they can override any objections on it.

BatteryCorrectHorse

More money for broadband and mobile.

I am over the moon!

noneoftheabove

Pulpstar said:

There's a 15 bp difference in the current reported 10 yr gilt between FT and Marketwatch.

https://markets.ft.com/data/bonds/tearsheet/summary?s=UK10YG

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmbmkgb-10y?countrycode=bx

Anyone know which one is closer to being correct ?

Yes, it is the one that supports whatever argument you wish to make, of course.

Stuartinromford

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

The IFS said that the enormous amount to spend on the NHS and Education is front loaded and doubt it is feasible to spend so much nor improve eficiency and leaves a shortfall for years 3 onwards

Depends on how it is spent. If it's dealing with the repairs backlog (the one that means I can only open three windows out of five for example), that might be pretty sensible.

A bit more on where the education money is going:
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/budget-2024-2-3bn-more-for-schools-and-1bn-for-send/

The 1 billion going to SEND is really just admitting reality- it's one of those things where the spending is inescapably needs-led and councils are horribly over-budget on SEND support.

The (by the look of it separate) repairs and rebuilding budget... again, plenty of non-wasteful things to spend it on.

viewcode

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

And largely useless in economic terms.

Which wouldn't be the case for (eg) grid or offshore wind investment.

Green Hydrogen is the solution that The System decided on, long ago. Despite enormous investment, it has never delivered.

Despite it being a Proper Policy - it involves all the Proper Stakeholders (oil giants, gas companies etc).

You're right and everything, but it's one thing to see the plan in print and quite another when the stupid fucks start building them. What right do we have to bitch about Trump when we do stupid things like this?

Alanbrooke

Stuartinromford said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

The IFS said that the enormous amount to spend on the NHS and Education is front loaded and doubt it is feasible to spend so much nor improve eficiency and leaves a shortfall for years 3 onwards

Depends on how it is spent. If it's dealing with the repairs backlog (the one that means I can only open three windows out of five for example), that might be pretty sensible.

A bit more on where the education money is going:
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/budget-2024-2-3bn-more-for-schools-and-1bn-for-send/

The 1 billion going to SEND is really just admitting reality- it's one of those things where the spending is inescapably needs-led and councils are horribly over-budget on SEND support.

The (by the look of it separate) repairs and rebuilding budget... again, plenty of non-wasteful things to spend it on.

Yes but theyll still spend it on waste because they can.

Pulpstar

Is that the sound of hundreds of farmers urgently planning meetings with tax accountants ?

rcs1000

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

And largely useless in economic terms.

Which wouldn't be the case for (eg) grid or offshore wind investment.

Green Hydrogen is the solution that The System decided on, long ago. Despite enormous investment, it has never delivered.

Despite it being a Proper Policy - it involves all the Proper Stakeholders (oil giants, gas companies etc).

You're right and everything, but it's one thing to see the plan in print and quite another when the stupid fucks start building them. What right do we have to bitch about Trump when we do stupid things like this?

Well, we're being pretty stupid and trying to rig the market to make natural gas competitive in the long term. (And the Conservatives are stupid in a different way for attempting to make nuclear competitive.)

Trump is adding an additional level of stupidity, because he's trying to keep coal competitive.

rcs1000

As an aside, I do approve of the closing of the farm tax breaks.

Pulpstar

noneoftheabove said:

Pulpstar said:

There's a 15 bp difference in the current reported 10 yr gilt between FT and Marketwatch.

https://markets.ft.com/data/bonds/tearsheet/summary?s=UK10YG

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmbmkgb-10y?countrycode=bx

Anyone know which one is closer to being correct ?

Yes, it is the one that supports whatever argument you wish to make, of course.

No, one's going to be objectively closer to reality than the other. My guess is at least one person will know that who has a proper Bloomberg? terminal and can thence answer the question. It seems to be Marketwatch with FT very out of date.

Alanbrooke

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

And largely useless in economic terms.

Which wouldn't be the case for (eg) grid or offshore wind investment.

Green Hydrogen is the solution that The System decided on, long ago. Despite enormous investment, it has never delivered.

Despite it being a Proper Policy - it involves all the Proper Stakeholders (oil giants, gas companies etc).

You're right and everything, but it's one thing to see the plan in print and quite another when the stupid fucks start building them. What right do we have to bitch about Trump when we do stupid things like this?

Well, we're being pretty stupid and trying to rig the market to make natural gas competitive in the long term. (And the Conservatives are stupid in a different way for attempting to make nuclear competitive.)

Trump is adding an additional level of stupidity, because he's trying to keep coal competitive.

We have Ed Miliband so everything will work out well.

CharlieShark

Not all unions happy. In fairness, any farmer that believed in Starmer probably had parsnips up their nostrils.


National Farmers' Union
@NFUtweets
In 2023
@Keir_Starmer
looked farmers in the eye & said he knew what losing a farm meant.

Farmers believed him.

After today’s budget they don’t believe him any more.

#BackBritishFarming

https://x.com/NFUtweets/status/1851648406952837226

FrankBooth

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

And largely useless in economic terms.

Which wouldn't be the case for (eg) grid or offshore wind investment.

Green Hydrogen is the solution that The System decided on, long ago. Despite enormous investment, it has never delivered.

Despite it being a Proper Policy - it involves all the Proper Stakeholders (oil giants, gas companies etc).

You're right and everything, but it's one thing to see the plan in print and quite another when the stupid fucks start building them. What right do we have to bitch about Trump when we do stupid things like this?

Well, we're being pretty stupid and trying to rig the market to make natural gas competitive in the long term. (And the Conservatives are stupid in a different way for attempting to make nuclear competitive.)

Trump is adding an additional level of stupidity, because he's trying to keep coal competitive.

Surely the Tory excuse is that nuclear is not Carbon based energy?

No_Offence_Alan

FrancisUrquhart said:

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is now holding a press conference to discuss its forecasts surrounding the Budget.

Reeves has lifted National Insurance Contributions by employers but the OBR reckons that it will be workers who end up paying the price.

OBR member David Miles says: "It seems highly likely that it will have an impact on the level of wages that firms who are facing higher taxes on employing people will pay."

He said that over time, it means wages will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

The realistic comparison is post tax income if we had raised income tax instead. I suspect it makes little difference although would vary by pay level.

We were going to have to raise something.

The difference being one is directly a tax on jobs, the other is a tax on people earning from their job. IMO, the best system is one that does as much as possible to encourage growth in companies, and then taxes company profits and individual earnings, rather than turn-over taxes.

The trouble is company profits are too easy to disguise as something else, and the something else always seem miraculously to attract a lower tax rate.

FrancisUrquhart

Institute for Fiscal Studies Director Paul Johnson says: “Looks like what is going on here is short term fiscal loosening is boosting growth immediately. But hindering growth later on. Those later year forecasts are disappointing.”

“Somebody will pay for the higher taxes – largely working people. The employer NICs rise will further increase the incentive for employers to switch to contracting with the self-employed.”

pinball13

Barnesian said:

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

Seems a bit unlikely for a couple of the states, but interesting set of polls.

Presidential Polling Leads:

MN: D +10
VA: D +8
NH: D +7
MI: D +5
NV: D +4
WI: D +3
PA: D +1

NC: R +2
TX: R +4
AZ: R +4
GA: R +5
FL: R +6
OH: R +7

CCES/YouGov / October 25, 2024
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1851397569206947900

Doesn't she win on those numbers?

Yes - 276:262

I like this tool for trying out possible EC results.
https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/road-to-270-electoral-college-interactive-map-2024-election/
I think Harris at 2.78 is value now.

Sean_F

kamski said:

Barnesian said:

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

Seems a bit unlikely for a couple of the states, but interesting set of polls.

Presidential Polling Leads:

MN: D +10
VA: D +8
NH: D +7
MI: D +5
NV: D +4
WI: D +3
PA: D +1

NC: R +2
TX: R +4
AZ: R +4
GA: R +5
FL: R +6
OH: R +7

CCES/YouGov / October 25, 2024
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1851397569206947900

Doesn't she win on those numbers?

Yes - 276:262

She could afford to lose Nevada of the ones she's leading in that poll, but nothing else.

Yougov are definitely not herding.

But, the polling was conducted over three and a half weeks, so it is dated.

Carnyx

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, I do approve of the closing of the farm tax breaks.

Misleading news focus on farmers: itd's the landowner not the land occupier who is in question, so long as the land is being used. Was quite surprised to find this when I recently inherited a small field (not that it made any difference to the actual IHT bill of £0).

algarkirk

edit

Eabhal

FrancisUrquhart said:

Institute for Fiscal Studies Director Paul Johnson says: “Looks like what is going on here is short term fiscal loosening is boosting growth immediately. But hindering growth later on. Those later year forecasts are disappointing.”

“Somebody will pay for the higher taxes – largely working people. The employer NICs rise will further increase the incentive for employers to switch to contracting with the self-employed.”

But then the growth is forecast to pick up again at the end of the parliament. Interesting.

another_richard

You require MAGA levels of delusion to think that a 1.2% rise in employers NI is enough to sort out the UK's economic and infrastructure problems.

That Reeves was too scared to raise fuel duty doesn't suggest she'll be able to cope in any crisis.

Malmesbury

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

And largely useless in economic terms.

Which wouldn't be the case for (eg) grid or offshore wind investment.

Green Hydrogen is the solution that The System decided on, long ago. Despite enormous investment, it has never delivered.

Despite it being a Proper Policy - it involves all the Proper Stakeholders (oil giants, gas companies etc).

You're right and everything, but it's one thing to see the plan in print and quite another when the stupid fucks start building them. What right do we have to bitch about Trump when we do stupid things like this?

Well, we're being pretty stupid and trying to rig the market to make natural gas competitive in the long term. (And the Conservatives are stupid in a different way for attempting to make nuclear competitive.)

Trump is adding an additional level of stupidity, because he's trying to keep coal competitive.

We have Ed Miliband so everything will work out well.

The thing to watch for there is that he believes in Expensive Energy as a cause. That is, throttle demand for energy with price.

In the next few years, solar (especially) will start challenging this orthodoxy. What then?

Fun one - the chap I know who is converting his family farm into solar + small business park, is looking at supplying power direct to the businesses on his mini-business park (converted old farm buildings) - even after installing battery etc, he thinks he can offer them a good rate as part of the package.

WhisperingOracle

algarkirk said:

edit

Indeed.

eek

another_richard said:

You require MAGA levels of delusion to think that a 1.2% rise in employers NI is enough to sort out the UK's economic and infrastructure problems.

That Reeves was too scared to raise fuel duty doesn't suggest she'll be able to cope in any crisis.

The problem with raising fuel duty is that it went against the workers will have more money in their pocket story.

Then we have the secondary issue which is that as cars move towards EV the tax revenue will disappear and the last thing you want to do is to start chasing that tail. Better to keep petrol tax levels as they are while working out how to cope with their disappearance..

bigjohnowls

I complete the purchase of a 5 bedroom bungalow next Monday.

Because it needs adaptions for Mrs BJs disabilities we have to stay in our current property for about 3 months so had to pay the 3% additional SDLT. as we have 2 residences temporally

I see that goes up to 5% at midnight (an extra £12k)

However we exchanged contracts a week ago in case the bastard in no11 did precisely what she has done.

Wise decision.

algarkirk

state_go_away said:

TimS said:

I don't think Gilt yields are going to be a big story. They're up a bit today because the announcements imply a bit more bond issuance than previously expected, but now settling down again. You'd need wild swings for that to be the thing the media seize on.

The focus is going to be on the impact of the BPR/APR changes, the NI threshold reduction and the bizarre decision not to unfreeze fuel duty. Plus the pretty stingy public spending commitments which I'm not sure are enough to get services properly improving again.

Interesting, and again a little surprising, that there were no changes on tax treatment of pension contributions.

the APR relief curtailment is really a big thing in terms of farming passing and investing to pass on farms down the generations - Anyone who knows the farming community will see that it is highly beneficial for farms to be passed down generations helping farmers to invest and nurture for the long term land

Yes, it's big. The 100% relief is too high, but the effective IHT rate on genuine farmers should be closer to 10% than 20%, but the 0% rate has been too low.

The AIM exemption should go altogether. It distorts the market.

There remains plenty of scope for agri IHT planning. Rural accountants and lawyers are not going out of business just yet.

Andy_JS

bigjohnowls said:

I complete the purchase of a 5 bedroom bungalow next Monday.

Because it needs adaptions for Mrs BJs disabilities we have to stay in our current property for about 3 months so had to pay the 3% additional SDLT. as we have 2 residences temporally

I see that goes up to 5% at midnight (an extra £12k)

However we exchanged contracts a week ago in case the bastard in no11 did precisely what she has done.

Wise decision.

There ought to be an exception for this type of case.

FrancisUrquhart

eek said:

another_richard said:

You require MAGA levels of delusion to think that a 1.2% rise in employers NI is enough to sort out the UK's economic and infrastructure problems.

That Reeves was too scared to raise fuel duty doesn't suggest she'll be able to cope in any crisis.

The problem with raising fuel duty is that it went against the workers will have more money in their pocket story.

Then we have the secondary issue which is that as cars move towards EV the tax revenue will disappear and the last thing you want to do is to start chasing that tail. Better to keep petrol tax levels as they are while working out how to cope with their disappearance..

I don't think the worker money in pocket line holds anyway, because they have changed the line so often about who a working person is, you know who you are nonsense.

I don't think a few p on petrol would make any difference politically as the price at the pump has fallen a fair bit in recent months.

OldKingCole

Malmesbury said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

I think we're going to see a scrapping of some of these measures because that borrowing forecast is absolutely shocking. It's more than Liz Truss proposed.

It does depend on what the borrowing is for. Just spraying it on tax cuts in the hope that it magically creates enough growth to pay for itself will, rightly, be seen dimly by financiers. If budgeting was that easy, those measures would have been adopted long ago.

On the other hand, getting NHS waiting lists down, to get long-term sick back to work, or to invest in necessary public infrastructure, may be received with a more relaxed manner.

I've been pretty busy at work today so have only caught the headlines. It sounds as if a lot really is capital spending but is that impression justified by the detail? From some of the comments on here, it sounds not - or maybe that it's quite contradictory?

The big capital spend seems to be on carbon capture and green hydrogen, both are a bit pie in the sky and have no near term deliverables other than money being spent.

And largely useless in economic terms.

Which wouldn't be the case for (eg) grid or offshore wind investment.

Green Hydrogen is the solution that The System decided on, long ago. Despite enormous investment, it has never delivered.

Despite it being a Proper Policy - it involves all the Proper Stakeholders (oil giants, gas companies etc).

You're right and everything, but it's one thing to see the plan in print and quite another when the stupid fucks start building them. What right do we have to bitch about Trump when we do stupid things like this?

Well, we're being pretty stupid and trying to rig the market to make natural gas competitive in the long term. (And the Conservatives are stupid in a different way for attempting to make nuclear competitive.)

Trump is adding an additional level of stupidity, because he's trying to keep coal competitive.

We have Ed Miliband so everything will work out well.

The thing to watch for there is that he believes in Expensive Energy as a cause. That is, throttle demand for energy with price.

In the next few years, solar (especially) will start challenging this orthodoxy. What then?

Fun one - the chap I know who is converting his family farm into solar + small business park, is looking at supplying power direct to the businesses on his mini-business park (converted old farm buildings) - even after installing battery etc, he thinks he can offer them a good rate as part of the package.

Saw a report about someone who was doing that on the box the other day. Seemed to be working out well.

kinabalu

bigjohnowls said:

I complete the purchase of a 5 bedroom bungalow next Monday.

Because it needs adaptions for Mrs BJs disabilities we have to stay in our current property for about 3 months so had to pay the 3% additional SDLT. as we have 2 residences temporally

I see that goes up to 5% at midnight (an extra £12k)

However we exchanged contracts a week ago in case the bastard in no11 did precisely what she has done.

Wise decision.

You get it back though when you sell your old place.

LostPassword

SouthamObserver said:

Currently up a massive 0.056%.

Can anyone be bothered to look up what the change was on the day of Kwarteng's budget for comparison purposes?

eek

Andy_JS said:

bigjohnowls said:

I complete the purchase of a 5 bedroom bungalow next Monday.

Because it needs adaptions for Mrs BJs disabilities we have to stay in our current property for about 3 months so had to pay the 3% additional SDLT. as we have 2 residences temporally

I see that goes up to 5% at midnight (an extra £12k)

However we exchanged contracts a week ago in case the bastard in no11 did precisely what she has done.

Wise decision.

There ought to be an exception for this type of case.

BJO will be able to get the 3% SDLT back when he sales his main property - but you still need the savings to be able to pay the money upfront..

TheScreamingEagles

Damon Hill is right, Max Verstappen is a dick.

He knows all about evil people trying to kill him whilst trying to win an F1 title.

Max Verstappen is ‘Formula One’s answer to Dick Dastardly’ says Damon Hill

Former world champion believes Verstappen has ‘let himself down’ with tactics to keep title rival Lando Norris behind him

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2024/10/30/max-verstappen-dick-dastardly-answer-damon-hill-norris/

Casino_Royale

As a few posters said on the last thread, it's so good to have a Labour budget again.

Daveyboy1961

FrancisUrquhart said:

Institute for Fiscal Studies Director Paul Johnson says: “Looks like what is going on here is short term fiscal loosening is boosting growth immediately. But hindering growth later on. Those later year forecasts are disappointing.”

“Somebody will pay for the higher taxes – largely working people. The employer NICs rise will further increase the incentive for employers to switch to contracting with the self-employed.”

Possibly, but if more money is needed for services, someone or something has to provide it. It's not rocket surgery.

GIN1138

Rachels not going to "crash the economy" is she?

OnlyLivingBoy

Thus far the rise in gilt yields seems to reflect expectations of higher short term rates from the bank of England, owing to stronger near term growth and inflation, rather than a rise in the term premium reflecting market nervousness. The 10 year yield and the two year yield alike are up about 10bp (0.1%) on Monday (the 2y yield is drive more by shortvend rate expectations). The expected short rate in Sep 2025 is actually up about 15bp. That picture could change of course but right now it's not looking very Truss like.

Cookie

Off/T: last day of a wonderful short break in Aviemore (which my parents were always a bit sniffy about but which is a perfectly pleasant spot to stay). Falls of Bruar, Highland Wildlife Park, Meall a Buachaillie (with three daughters in tow and minimal whingeing), the Enchanted Forest ( @Luckyguy1983 's recommendation from back in 2022, repeated for the third year), Brodie Castle. Implausibly good weather. The visual highlights have been going south over the top of the A9 north of Killiecrankie in the late afternoon sun with an RAF plane flying low through the pass above us, and the Nairn-Carr Bridge road, also on the late afternoon sun. Trying to work out whether its possible to extend the holiday a bit. Or maybe just come and live here.



*"Off' spelt in its entireity for the benefit of Anabobazina

WhisperingOracle

Eabhal said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Institute for Fiscal Studies Director Paul Johnson says: “Looks like what is going on here is short term fiscal loosening is boosting growth immediately. But hindering growth later on. Those later year forecasts are disappointing.”

“Somebody will pay for the higher taxes – largely working people. The employer NICs rise will further increase the incentive for employers to switch to contracting with the self-employed.”

But then the growth is forecast to pick up again at the end of the parliament. Interesting.

I find it very odd how little discussion there's been within Labour on the results of removing Miliband"s original plan for Green investment and growth, purely because of Tory electioneering, and not in line with the view of most economists, or the markets.

Although overall I don't think it's a bad budget, I have some sense that this very front-loaded focus on the.NHS is making up for this lost centrepirce, and I'm not sure if that is correctly balanced.

LostPassword

Alanbrooke said:

So not much by way of housebulding then.

The main number I heard on housebuilding was 2,000 new homes in Liverpool quays. I was thinking that was going to be the start of listing thousands of homes in more such projects around the country, but unless I was distracted and missed it, that seemed to be it.

2,000 homes.

It's not much to boast about in a budget speech.

turbotubbs

rottenborough said:

FPT:

A1 dualing north of Morpeth has become like waiting for Godot.

See also doing something, anything about the A303 at Stonehenge. A guy I worked for in 1991 ran the pub at Winterbourne Stoke. Very profitable if you put the work in (last pub on the road for miles in either direction). He was convinced the bypass was coming in shortly and sold up. Its still there, on the A303 in 2024... And for the foreseeable.

Cookie

Cookie said:

Off/T: last day of a wonderful short break in Aviemore (which my parents were always a bit sniffy about but which is a perfectly pleasant spot to stay). Falls of Bruar, Highland Wildlife Park, Meall a Buachaillie (with three daughters in tow and minimal whingeing), the Enchanted Forest ( @Luckyguy1983 's recommendation from back in 2022, repeated for the third year), Brodie Castle. Implausibly good weather. The visual highlights have been going south over the top of the A9 north of Killiecrankie in the late afternoon sun with an RAF plane flying low through the pass above us, and the Nairn-Carr Bridge road, also on the late afternoon sun. Trying to work out whether its possible to extend the holiday a bit. Or maybe just come and live here.



*"Off' spelt in its entireity for the benefit of Anabobazina

Sorry - vanilla seems to be posting images very small...