Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Liz Truss would be proud – politicalbetting.com

1356710

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452
    Kansas poll from the Docking Institute

    Trump 48.2%
    Harris 43.2%
    (Trump +5.0)

    (Fall 2024 | 645 Adults)

    https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1850973817213984974
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,059
    MattW said:

    Good afternoon everyone.

    A comment on the graph in the header:
    It's so bad that it also caused German, US and French 10 year yields to spike at the exact same time.... or there might be another cause.
    https://x.com/joozy1/status/1851645049366364256

    I think the thing with reactions, rather than factual commentary, is to ignore it for the next week :smile: .

    Do we have a 4 year version of that graph?

    Best to check here:

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

    I was talking to our chief economist earlier and asked her about gilt yields, currency etc today and her response was "remember we are just one small country and there are other things going on around the world", which is pretty similar to that comment above.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,562
    There’s not going to be any meaningful growth before May 3rd 2029.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755
    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    How much of the additional £22bn for the NHS will actually get spent on fixing the structural issues it has and how much will get pissed up against the wall?

    It will fund foreign holidays and home improvements for NHS workers.
    You think NHS workers should drop the pretensions and settle for Butlins?
    We should recognise that giving pay rises to NHS workers isn't investment in the public sector but putting more money in private pockets.
    It's a bit narrow to count only tangibles as investment. Eg what if you "invest" in a new road? Are you not going to include labour costs?
    Construction costs of a tangible are investment.

    Operation costs are not.

    Those constructing a new hospital for instance fall under investment. Those operating it are not.

    Capex vs Opex. NHS workers are Opex not Capex.
    Sort of - but it can be something of a grey area. Eg new or better trained or more highly qualified staff might be needed to leverage the physical assets into improved outcomes.

    Plus all people need a pay rise now and again, whatever they're working on.
    All people do need a pay rise, yes, but that's not investment its current expenditure.

    Improved outcomes may need more staff, yes, but that again is not investment its current expenditure.

    Investment has a meaning different to current expenditure. That's not to mean there shouldn't be current expenditure, but don't call it investment if its not.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,949
    MattW said:

    Good afternoon everyone.

    A comment on the graph in the header:
    It's so bad that it also caused German, US and French 10 year yields to spike at the exact same time.... or there might be another cause.
    https://x.com/joozy1/status/1851645049366364256

    I think the thing with reactions, rather than factual commentary, is to ignore it for the next week :smile: .

    Do we have a 4 year version of that graph?

    Trying to derive a movement in the markets to trash the budget is a fool’s game.

    Truss’s idiocy came as a surprise (despite her career-long demonstration of idiocy, for anyone who had being paying attention).

    Starmer’s Labour was wise enough to trail all the bad stuff..including some bad stuff that didn’t actually happen (such as extending the allowances freeze) in advance, so that the markets weren’t surprised.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,258
    edited October 30

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB 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.

    The principle of higher transaction fees for multiple property owners isn't bad, though there should probably be allowances made for these kinds of situations. If anything it should be an additional 5% per property owned, that would have been bold.
    The current system of stamp duty makes the market less liquid and discourages trading down. It therefore worsens the shortage of housing.

    If you want to discourage second home ownership, then charge a 200% premium on council tax for properties that are lived in less than (say) 26 weeks a year. That would make people really think about whether they needed that place they barely live in. (It would be very expensive for me as I have a London flat I don't spend 26 weeks a year in. But it would be good for housing availability, because it would discourage people from owning assets they don't use.)
    A 200% premium on empty property isn't going to solve the issue of private renting having an economically deleterious effect. Private renting results in money flowing in the wrong direction, from workers to asset holders so using the tax system to penalise such behaviour is not something I'm greatly bothered by.
    There are multiple issues, not just one.

    Now, personally, I am very happy to rent. If the choice is between having $1m invested in my business and me renting, and $1m invested in a house, I'll choose the former every time. And people should be allowed to make that choice.

    What I think is most important to address is the fact that the housing market is inefficient. People live in houses that are too big for them, because trading down is so expensive because of stamp duty. And there are homes that are barely used.

    The tax system should be encouraging the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Everything the government does in the housing market should be framed around that question, and raising stamp duty does the opposite. It makes the market less liquid, and discourages efficient allocation.
    That's true, but relative to other countries, the UK isn't particularly afflicted by people occupying more property than they need so focusing on this might be a kind of displacement activity. The real problem is population growth relative to the housing stock.
    Firstly, isn't that the Silver Bullet fallacy? Just because something doesn't solve the whole problem we shouldn't do anything. Easing up on stamp duty but increasing council tax is probably the single easiest way to encourage people to trade down when they no longer need the additional space and also not to own homes they don't use. (It might also gently discourage people from Russia/China/Singapore etc from using empty properties in the UK as a form of savings that are safe from the own government.)

    Secondly, the UK's second house "problem" is much worse than you think. In Spain or Portugal, the second homes are in places where tourists want to live. Indeed, they were built to attract moderately wealthy Brits and Germans and Swedes. In the UK, the biggest concentration of unused second homes is in Central London.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,293

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal 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.
    No it isn't, it's 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.6% for the final three years of the forecast. Going from 1.5% to 1.6% isn't anything like picking up and forecasts more than a year out are worthless to that degree of accuracy, the error ratio is massive.
    Ah you're right, I was misreading the OBR's Chart 3.3.

    (Which is interesting anyway - have a look).
    With forecasts that far ahead, we’ll be lucky if it is accurate to + or minus….
    It's not that we'd expect the forecast to be accurate in itself, but the difference between the forecast now and the forecast in March tells us interesting things about what has changed in the interim.

    The comparison isn't good this time.
    I can't believe the energy spent over forecasts that vary by tiny fractions over 5 years, that no-one believes are particularly accurate, based on plans from both parties that we all know wont be followed.
    It's the best available metric for judging how well the budget measures are expected to affect growth. Not saying it's perfect, but the alternative is what?
    Forecasting should be part of the process sure, but not the intense arguments about 1.6% or 1.7% growth rates over 5 years. Even six months after the fifth year has finished we still wouldn't know the growth rate to 0.1% accuracy, subsequent revisions will be more than that, which shows how pointless it is to argue about it now.

    My reflections on the budget are broadly happy with where we have raised the money from, less happy how we are spending it, and think it is probably too timid (as opposed to the reaction suggesting it is too much).

    6/10 or B-/C+ type grades from me.
    And, compared with recent attempts, that's a definite improvement. The spending doesn't look brilliant, but it does look realistic (which Hunt's simply didn't.) The tax totals follow from that, and look about as good as can be expected.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261

    There’s not going to be any meaningful growth before May 3rd 2029.

    Why change the habit of 20 years...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,949
    edited October 30
    ‘Honest Bobby’ Jenrick on LBC describes the budget as Labour raking in extra tax to spend on “vanity projects”.

    I’m not convinced that voters will see schools, hospitals, defence, roads and railways as ‘vanity’, myself.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888
    moonshine said:

    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.

    Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.

    (It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    OBR aren’t entirely taking Labour on trust, either.

    The OBR is currently assuming Labour fail to hit their 1.5 million homes target by 200,000.

    However, they haven't modelled the planning reform changes proposed since the election.

    The easiest route to an upgrade in the growth forecast is delivering planning reform.

    https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1851651414105240004

    1.5 million new homes in the next 197,976 years does sounds like a bit of a stretch, but I think if they really push it is achievable.
    I think it might mean fall short by 200k homes, BWDIK ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,258
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    OBR aren’t entirely taking Labour on trust, either.

    The OBR is currently assuming Labour fail to hit their 1.5 million homes target by 200,000.

    However, they haven't modelled the planning reform changes proposed since the election.

    The easiest route to an upgrade in the growth forecast is delivering planning reform.

    https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1851651414105240004

    1.5 million new homes in the next 197,976 years does sounds like a bit of a stretch, but I think if they really push it is achievable.
    I think it might mean fall short by 200k homes, BWDIK ?
    I know that! I just thought it was a good gag.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,622

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal 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.
    No it isn't, it's 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.6% for the final three years of the forecast. Going from 1.5% to 1.6% isn't anything like picking up and forecasts more than a year out are worthless to that degree of accuracy, the error ratio is massive.
    Ah you're right, I was misreading the OBR's Chart 3.3.

    (Which is interesting anyway - have a look).
    With forecasts that far ahead, we’ll be lucky if it is accurate to + or minus….
    It's not that we'd expect the forecast to be accurate in itself, but the difference between the forecast now and the forecast in March tells us interesting things about what has changed in the interim.

    The comparison isn't good this time.
    I can't believe the energy spent over forecasts that vary by tiny fractions over 5 years, that no-one believes are particularly accurate, based on plans from both parties that we all know wont be followed.
    It's the best available metric for judging how well the budget measures are expected to affect growth. Not saying it's perfect, but the alternative is what?
    Forecasting should be part of the process sure, but not the intense arguments about 1.6% or 1.7% growth rates over 5 years. Even six months after the fifth year has finished we still wouldn't know the growth rate to 0.1% accuracy, subsequent revisions will be more than that, which shows how pointless it is to argue about it now.

    My reflections on the budget are broadly happy with where we have raised the money from, less happy how we are spending it, and think it is probably too timid (as opposed to the reaction suggesting it is too much).

    6/10 or B-/C+ type grades from me.
    Yes, I'd give it broadly a B. I think negative market reactions are understandable - the revised OBR work is pretty grim reading.

    I'm also with @rcs1000 on renting and investing in the business. That's what I have done, and I'm expecting to buy a decent place miles away from commuterland when I segue into retirement over the next 10-15 years, while having avoided any kind of boss for the last 20 years and all the fun/heartache of running a business. Not having a bank of mum and dad meant I had no way of bootstrapping a purchase in my early career, and no desire to later.

    It was undoubtedly riskier, but that suits me.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,327

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal 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.
    No it isn't, it's 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.6% for the final three years of the forecast. Going from 1.5% to 1.6% isn't anything like picking up and forecasts more than a year out are worthless to that degree of accuracy, the error ratio is massive.
    Ah you're right, I was misreading the OBR's Chart 3.3.

    (Which is interesting anyway - have a look).
    With forecasts that far ahead, we’ll be lucky if it is accurate to + or minus….
    It's not that we'd expect the forecast to be accurate in itself, but the difference between the forecast now and the forecast in March tells us interesting things about what has changed in the interim.

    The comparison isn't good this time.
    I can't believe the energy spent over forecasts that vary by tiny fractions over 5 years, that no-one believes are particularly accurate, based on plans from both parties that we all know wont be followed.
    The idea that due to government policy we can shoot upwards and out of the pack (of our peers) on growth is delusional imo and does us no favours.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261
    edited October 30
    IanB2 said:

    ‘Honest Bobby’ Jenrick on LBC describes the budget as Labour raking in extra tax to spend on “vanity projects”.

    I’m not convinced that voters will see schools, hospitals, defence, roads and railways as ‘vanity’, myself.

    If I was him, I wouldn't be saying vanity projects but highlighting poorly directed e.g. carbon capture, green hydrogen, while cancelling road projects, supercomputers etc.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    OBR aren’t entirely taking Labour on trust, either.

    The OBR is currently assuming Labour fail to hit their 1.5 million homes target by 200,000.

    However, they haven't modelled the planning reform changes proposed since the election.

    The easiest route to an upgrade in the growth forecast is delivering planning reform.

    https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1851651414105240004

    1.5 million new homes in the next 197,976 years does sounds like a bit of a stretch, but I think if they really push it is achievable.
    I think it might mean fall short by 200k homes, BWDIK ?
    I know that! I just thought it was a good gag.
    It was, but I felt I had to deadpan back.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    edited October 30
    Nigelb said:

    Kansas poll from the Docking Institute

    Trump 48.2%
    Harris 43.2%
    (Trump +5.0)

    (Fall 2024 | 645 Adults)

    https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1850973817213984974

    645 sample size. They love to scrimp in the States! Spend billions on corrupt donations but not 25k on a decent opinion poll. Weird place.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755

    moonshine said:

    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.

    Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.

    (It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
    His other complaint is that only 10% of the funds approved by Congress in 2024 have been released. “The problem is not money it’s bureaucracy”.

    As I have said here many times, Biden’s record on this war is poor and he has been at pains to ensure Ukraine gets just enough not to lose but not enough that it might win. After two years of obsessively soaking up the optimistic daily battle reports, I am now open to hearing a fresh perspective aside from the White House consensus on how this might positively end for Ukraine and Europe.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB 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.

    The principle of higher transaction fees for multiple property owners isn't bad, though there should probably be allowances made for these kinds of situations. If anything it should be an additional 5% per property owned, that would have been bold.
    The current system of stamp duty makes the market less liquid and discourages trading down. It therefore worsens the shortage of housing.

    If you want to discourage second home ownership, then charge a 200% premium on council tax for properties that are lived in less than (say) 26 weeks a year. That would make people really think about whether they needed that place they barely live in. (It would be very expensive for me as I have a London flat I don't spend 26 weeks a year in. But it would be good for housing availability, because it would discourage people from owning assets they don't use.)
    A 200% premium on empty property isn't going to solve the issue of private renting having an economically deleterious effect. Private renting results in money flowing in the wrong direction, from workers to asset holders so using the tax system to penalise such behaviour is not something I'm greatly bothered by.
    There are multiple issues, not just one.

    Now, personally, I am very happy to rent. If the choice is between having $1m invested in my business and me renting, and $1m invested in a house, I'll choose the former every time. And people should be allowed to make that choice.

    What I think is most important to address is the fact that the housing market is inefficient. People live in houses that are too big for them, because trading down is so expensive because of stamp duty. And there are homes that are barely used.

    The tax system should be encouraging the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Everything the government does in the housing market should be framed around that question, and raising stamp duty does the opposite. It makes the market less liquid, and discourages efficient allocation.
    That's true, but relative to other countries, the UK isn't particularly afflicted by people occupying more property than they need so focusing on this might be a kind of displacement activity. The real problem is population growth relative to the housing stock.
    Firstly, isn't that the Silver Bullet fallacy? Just because something doesn't solve the whole problem we shouldn't do anything. Easing up on stamp duty but increasing council tax is probably the single easiest way to both trade down when they no longer need the additional space and to encourage people to not own homes they don't use.

    Secondly, the UK's second house "problem" is much worse than you think. In Spain or Portugal, the second homes are in places where tourists want to live. Indeed, they were built to attract moderately wealthy Brits and Germans and Swedes. In the UK, the biggest concentration of unused second homes is in Central London.
    It's more the law of diminishing returns than the Silver Bullet fallacy. We've already squeezed the existing housing stock to the point that we have one of the lowest rates of vacant property in Europe.

    Similarly for central London, there are much more obvious misallocations of resources than pied-à-terres not being lived in year-round.
  • spudgfsh said:

    Labour are touting “a penny off a pint” as a selling point of the budget.

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1851617817059045680

    Which has basically been overshadowed by the E-NIC changes
    It's a big shadow. Expectation is extra 30p per pint with everything in.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,059
    IanB2 said:

    ‘Honest Bobby’ Jenrick on LBC describes the budget as Labour raking in extra tax to spend on “vanity projects”.

    I’m not convinced that voters will see schools, hospitals, defence, roads and railways as ‘vanity’, myself.

    Did he get some mention of leaving the ECHR in there? And surely he must be able to find some element of public spending on DEI training and say that's what the tax rises are going on (or is that more Kemi's thing)?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    moonshine said:

    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.

    Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.

    (It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
    Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    mwadams said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal 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.
    No it isn't, it's 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.6% for the final three years of the forecast. Going from 1.5% to 1.6% isn't anything like picking up and forecasts more than a year out are worthless to that degree of accuracy, the error ratio is massive.
    Ah you're right, I was misreading the OBR's Chart 3.3.

    (Which is interesting anyway - have a look).
    With forecasts that far ahead, we’ll be lucky if it is accurate to + or minus….
    It's not that we'd expect the forecast to be accurate in itself, but the difference between the forecast now and the forecast in March tells us interesting things about what has changed in the interim.

    The comparison isn't good this time.
    I can't believe the energy spent over forecasts that vary by tiny fractions over 5 years, that no-one believes are particularly accurate, based on plans from both parties that we all know wont be followed.
    It's the best available metric for judging how well the budget measures are expected to affect growth. Not saying it's perfect, but the alternative is what?
    Forecasting should be part of the process sure, but not the intense arguments about 1.6% or 1.7% growth rates over 5 years. Even six months after the fifth year has finished we still wouldn't know the growth rate to 0.1% accuracy, subsequent revisions will be more than that, which shows how pointless it is to argue about it now.

    My reflections on the budget are broadly happy with where we have raised the money from, less happy how we are spending it, and think it is probably too timid (as opposed to the reaction suggesting it is too much).

    6/10 or B-/C+ type grades from me.
    Yes, I'd give it broadly a B. I think negative market reactions are understandable - the revised OBR work is pretty grim reading.

    I'm also with @rcs1000 on renting and investing in the business. That's what I have done, and I'm expecting to buy a decent place miles away from commuterland when I segue into retirement over the next 10-15 years, while having avoided any kind of boss for the last 20 years and all the fun/heartache of running a business. Not having a bank of mum and dad meant I had no way of bootstrapping a purchase in my early career, and no desire to later.

    It was undoubtedly riskier, but that suits me.
    Another renter business owner. Although quite like commuter land, at least the close to the centre parts of it. But think we should continue to make landlording less attractive and home ownership more achievable both through stamp duty and council tax surcharges, also clamping down on airbnb style arrangements.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,877

    Labour are touting “a penny off a pint” as a selling point of the budget.

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1851617817059045680

    That's actually cringe as fuck. Pints will go up in price quite substantially to pay for all the additional NI.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,327
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    OBR aren’t entirely taking Labour on trust, either.

    The OBR is currently assuming Labour fail to hit their 1.5 million homes target by 200,000.

    However, they haven't modelled the planning reform changes proposed since the election.

    The easiest route to an upgrade in the growth forecast is delivering planning reform.

    https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1851651414105240004

    1.5 million new homes in the next 197,976 years does sounds like a bit of a stretch, but I think if they really push it is achievable.
    I think it might mean fall short by 200k homes, BWDIK ?
    1.3m would be good compared to prior periods.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    kinabalu said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal 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.
    No it isn't, it's 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.6% for the final three years of the forecast. Going from 1.5% to 1.6% isn't anything like picking up and forecasts more than a year out are worthless to that degree of accuracy, the error ratio is massive.
    Ah you're right, I was misreading the OBR's Chart 3.3.

    (Which is interesting anyway - have a look).
    With forecasts that far ahead, we’ll be lucky if it is accurate to + or minus….
    It's not that we'd expect the forecast to be accurate in itself, but the difference between the forecast now and the forecast in March tells us interesting things about what has changed in the interim.

    The comparison isn't good this time.
    I can't believe the energy spent over forecasts that vary by tiny fractions over 5 years, that no-one believes are particularly accurate, based on plans from both parties that we all know wont be followed.
    The idea that due to government policy we can shoot upwards and out of the pack (of our peers) on growth is delusional imo and does us no favours.
    My suspicion is governments can't improve growth by much, but they can and do make it significantly worse when they try! They can improve growth a little over a long time by investing but dont see the electoral benefits of such investment until after they are kicked out, so don't bother.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,234

    Labour are touting “a penny off a pint” as a selling point of the budget.

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1851617817059045680

    Famously barstaff employers are exempt from paying Employer NI and minimum wage.
  • Will Arnie coming out for Harris "terminate" Trumps chances? 😏 Or is it already Hasta La Vista Harris? 😚
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,018
    I'm pleased to see those parrots survived. I hope, in spite of your housing shortages, the Labour government will be able to find a home for them that suits their needs.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/10/29/london-zoo-escape-parrots/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    moonshine said:

    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.

    Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.

    (It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
    Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
    No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.

    Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
    Biden's weakness invited the invasion.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources

    Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.

    Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.

    Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,234
    I think Labour should have just left beer duty tbh. A real gimmick and noone is going to s3 this penny as pub overheads increase
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261
    MaxPB said:

    Labour are touting “a penny off a pint” as a selling point of the budget.

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1851617817059045680

    That's actually cringe as fuck. Pints will go up in price quite substantially to pay for all the additional NI.
    Well and when a pint is on average a £5....
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,045

    moonshine said:

    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.

    Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.

    (It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
    Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
    Get this guy in, he’ll put Putin back in his box.

    ‘I have asked President Putin’

    https://x.com/zaleskiluke/status/1850854452053324209?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888

    moonshine said:

    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.

    Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.

    (It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
    Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
    No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.

    Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
    Biden's weakness invited the invasion.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources

    Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.

    Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.

    Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
    And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.

    Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,654
    Pulpstar said:

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

    I suspect many farms are owned, with a manager, by very wealthy individuals to get round IHT.

    https://taxjustice.uk/blog/how-the-super-rich-avoid-inheritance-tax/
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,775
    Weird budget. Lots of additional cash for SEND and carer's allowance, which is expected from a Labour government. But no abolishment of the two child limit?

    Billions on the fuel duty freeze, but bus fares up 50% and cycling funding less than what we had under Johnson?

    But it's the lack of palpable, physical investment that is oddest - it would make the borrowing more tolerable, even for PB Tories.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755

    moonshine said:

    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.

    Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.

    (It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
    Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
    “It depends what sort of invasion”.

    The most catastrophic sentence uttered by a U.S. president in a lifetime
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915

    Will Arnie coming out for Harris "terminate" Trumps chances? 😏 Or is it already Hasta La Vista Harris? 😚

    The next debate:

    Trump : Vote for me if you want to live.
    Harris: Trump doesn't feel pity, remorse or fear and he absolutely will not stop, ever until he is dead
    Trump: I'll still be back
    Harris: The Future has not been written. Please vote for me.
    Trump: When this is all over, I am going to kill you.
    Harris: You just can't go around killing people.
    Trump: Judgement day is inevitable.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261
    edited October 30
    Eabhal said:

    Weird budget. Lots of additional cash for SEND and carer's allowance, which is expected from a Labour government. But no abolishment of the two child limit?

    Billions on the fuel duty freeze, but bus fares up 50% and cycling funding less than what we had under Johnson?

    But it's the lack of palpable, physical investment that is oddest - it would make the borrowing more tolerable, even for PB Tories.

    There is little to no talk of "reform" either....other than planning, but even that, all gone very quiet.

    1997 it wasn't just money, the incoming Labour government had a clear set of wide ranging reforms for public services.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061

    MaxPB said:

    Labour are touting “a penny off a pint” as a selling point of the budget.

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1851617817059045680

    That's actually cringe as fuck. Pints will go up in price quite substantially to pay for all the additional NI.
    Well and when a pint is on average a £5....
    Suspect it was in as a sop to the hospitality lot because of non smoking in your garden etc and she forgot to take it out when the policy went. It's an utterly pointless change costing money to benefit absolutely nobody.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,775

    Eabhal said:

    Weird budget. Lots of additional cash for SEND and carer's allowance, which is expected from a Labour government. But no abolishment of the two child limit?

    Billions on the fuel duty freeze, but bus fares up 50% and cycling funding less than what we had under Johnson?

    But it's the lack of palpable, physical investment that is oddest - it would make the borrowing more tolerable, even for PB Tories.

    There is little to no talk of "reform" either....other than planning, but even that, all gone very quiet.
    Note the big increases in spending on justice and education though. That is a surprise, though the former is probably critical for Labour. Cannot be seen to be weak on crime.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261

    MaxPB said:

    Labour are touting “a penny off a pint” as a selling point of the budget.

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1851617817059045680

    That's actually cringe as fuck. Pints will go up in price quite substantially to pay for all the additional NI.
    Well and when a pint is on average a £5....
    Suspect it was in as a sop to the hospitality lot because of non smoking in your garden etc and she forgot to take it out when the policy went. It's an utterly pointless change costing money to benefit absolutely nobody.
    Hold on, did they shit can the no smoking in pub gardens? Did I miss that?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261
    edited October 30
    England cricket captain Ben Stokes says a masked gang burgled his home - when his wife and two children were there - while he was in Pakistan for the recent Test series. The 33-year-old said his family did not come to "any physical harm" but a number of "sentimental" items were taken.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/articles/c1wjegjp28yo

    Now this doesn't excuse it, but he recently did a home tour on YouTube, where he showed off all this stuff and I did think at the time, who actually keep your medals etc at home on display, not sure I would, and definitely not doing a YouTube video about it.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755

    moonshine said:

    Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.

    Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.

    (It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
    Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
    No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.

    Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
    Biden's weakness invited the invasion.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources

    Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.

    Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.

    Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
    And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.

    Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
    If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.

    Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.

    We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061

    MaxPB said:

    Labour are touting “a penny off a pint” as a selling point of the budget.

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1851617817059045680

    That's actually cringe as fuck. Pints will go up in price quite substantially to pay for all the additional NI.
    Well and when a pint is on average a £5....
    Suspect it was in as a sop to the hospitality lot because of non smoking in your garden etc and she forgot to take it out when the policy went. It's an utterly pointless change costing money to benefit absolutely nobody.
    Hold on, did they shit can the no smoking in pub gardens? Did I miss that?
    I thought it had been shelved in the last week or so.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,327

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    How much of the additional £22bn for the NHS will actually get spent on fixing the structural issues it has and how much will get pissed up against the wall?

    It will fund foreign holidays and home improvements for NHS workers.
    You think NHS workers should drop the pretensions and settle for Butlins?
    We should recognise that giving pay rises to NHS workers isn't investment in the public sector but putting more money in private pockets.
    It's a bit narrow to count only tangibles as investment. Eg what if you "invest" in a new road? Are you not going to include labour costs?
    Construction costs of a tangible are investment.

    Operation costs are not.

    Those constructing a new hospital for instance fall under investment. Those operating it are not.

    Capex vs Opex. NHS workers are Opex not Capex.
    Sort of - but it can be something of a grey area. Eg new or better trained or more highly qualified staff might be needed to leverage the physical assets into improved outcomes.

    Plus all people need a pay rise now and again, whatever they're working on.
    All people do need a pay rise, yes, but that's not investment its current expenditure.

    Improved outcomes may need more staff, yes, but that again is not investment its current expenditure.

    Investment has a meaning different to current expenditure. That's not to mean there shouldn't be current expenditure, but don't call it investment if its not.
    It's not black and white, is my point. Eg you construct a new diagnostic centre and to extract proper value from it you need enough of the right people operating it. The resulting delta in staff costs isn't "investment"? I'd say it is, or let's say there's a strong case that it is. The other side of the coin is you don't want to allow gaming of the system such that expenditure which is really BAU masquerades as being an investment.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    Long day in court today but got a better picture on the way home.

    Firstly, let me be clear that I support the tax rises (at least the non political ones like VAT on school fees). Our expenditure is unacceptably out of line with the tax revenues and that needed to be changed. The Tories were being blatantly insulting and dishonest about what was required.

    Secondly, increasing spending beyond the £40bn extra raised actually makes the situation worse and is frankly irresponsible. The last thing we needed was UK borrowing, already dangerously high, to increase. This was a budget in which a responsible Chancellor would have cut public spending overall, not increased it.

    Thirdly, I am frankly doubtful that the combination of these 2 will in fact increase growth as she claims. It seems likely to me that the risk of lending to the UK government has increased and that the rates at which they can borrow that money is likely to do likewise.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    This was largely an attack on the Tory core vote, wealthy farmers and business owners and Tory and Reform supporting small businesses, entrepreneurs and right to buy seekers.

    However if the increased cost of the NI rise and living wage rise lead to pay cuts and job losses for other workers too then it could hit Labour as well. The markets reacting badly not a great start for Starmer
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,861


    Greg Sargent
    @GregTSargent

    Whoa. New CNN polls:

    MICHIGAN
    Harris 48
    Trump 43

    WISCONSIN
    Harris 51
    Trump 45

    PENNSYLVANIA
    Harris 48
    Trump 48

    https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/1851658882558410908
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313

    Will Arnie coming out for Harris "terminate" Trumps chances? 😏 Or is it already Hasta La Vista Harris? 😚

    He will help with a few fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republics. Of the swing states such voters tend to be concentrated in Arizona and Nevada so might help Harris a bit there
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,327
    Nigelb said:

    Kansas poll from the Docking Institute

    Trump 48.2%
    Harris 43.2%
    (Trump +5.0)

    (Fall 2024 | 645 Adults)

    https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1850973817213984974

    Oh yes - that's a wizard (!) of a poll.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,801
    I've been pondering the header comment. Just plain wrong @tse. Truss was entirely (and incidently still is) entirely delusional. Reeves actually knows something about what she's doing. (Quite why she's a member of the Labour party escapes me)

    This was a pretty good budget in most ways - a bit Robin Hood obviously, but not too bad.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    How much of the additional £22bn for the NHS will actually get spent on fixing the structural issues it has and how much will get pissed up against the wall?

    It will fund foreign holidays and home improvements for NHS workers.
    You think NHS workers should drop the pretensions and settle for Butlins?
    We should recognise that giving pay rises to NHS workers isn't investment in the public sector but putting more money in private pockets.
    It's a bit narrow to count only tangibles as investment. Eg what if you "invest" in a new road? Are you not going to include labour costs?
    Construction costs of a tangible are investment.

    Operation costs are not.

    Those constructing a new hospital for instance fall under investment. Those operating it are not.

    Capex vs Opex. NHS workers are Opex not Capex.
    Sort of - but it can be something of a grey area. Eg new or better trained or more highly qualified staff might be needed to leverage the physical assets into improved outcomes.

    Plus all people need a pay rise now and again, whatever they're working on.
    All people do need a pay rise, yes, but that's not investment its current expenditure.

    Improved outcomes may need more staff, yes, but that again is not investment its current expenditure.

    Investment has a meaning different to current expenditure. That's not to mean there shouldn't be current expenditure, but don't call it investment if its not.
    It's not black and white, is my point. Eg you construct a new diagnostic centre and to extract proper value from it you need enough of the right people operating it. The resulting delta in staff costs isn't "investment"? I'd say it is, or let's say there's a strong case that it is. The other side of the coin is you don't want to allow gaming of the system such that expenditure which is really BAU masquerades as being an investment.
    No it is not, its operating expenditure.

    Cutting operating expenditure below where its needed can cause harms but that doesn't make it investment.

    The two are different things and it is black and white.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,327



    Greg Sargent
    @GregTSargent

    Whoa. New CNN polls:

    MICHIGAN
    Harris 48
    Trump 43

    WISCONSIN
    Harris 51
    Trump 45

    PENNSYLVANIA
    Harris 48
    Trump 48

    https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/1851658882558410908

    Serious Musk affect there if true?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,127
    Eabhal said:

    Weird budget. Lots of additional cash for SEND and carer's allowance, which is expected from a Labour government. But no abolishment of the two child limit?

    Billions on the fuel duty freeze, but bus fares up 50% and cycling funding less than what we had under Johnson?

    But it's the lack of palpable, physical investment that is oddest - it would make the borrowing more tolerable, even for PB Tories.

    Lol. 'Bike Funding'

    Wasting money digging up roads more like
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,927
    Late afternoon all :)

    I really thought gambling duties were going to be increased in the Budget but nothing as far as I can see.

    It's been nowhere near as "bold" or "radical" with, as is often the case, the trailers showing the best parts of the movie and those who thought we would be taxed into indentured servitude have rather overplayed their hands.

    The quandary for Reeves is trying to close the deficit without spending where it is clearly needed (SEN for example). Borrowing will go up it seems (though changes to how borrowing is calculated will muddy the waters).

    I don't see a co-ordinated assault on the very wealthy - no sign pf imaginative thinking on wealth or asset taxes such as Land Value Taxation.

    Perhaps, pace Howe, it will be the second Budget which will be the attempt to be economically transformative - we'll see.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    Less growth, more debt.
    Not enough I think to immediately Trussify us but the UK moves well up the queue for the speculators to attack when the world economy next goes tonto
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,209
    Early voting suggests turnout in the US Presidential election will be high. Isn't high turnout generally seen as good for the Democrats?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261
    HYUFD said:

    This was largely an attack on the Tory core vote, wealthy farmers and business owners and Tory and Reform supporting small businesses, entrepreneurs and right to buy seekers.

    However if the increased cost of the NI rise and living wage rise lead to pay cuts and job losses for other workers too then it could hit Labour as well. The markets reacting badly not a great start for Starmer

    Wealthy pensioners too with IHT freeze and inclusion of some types of pension into the total threshold.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    I really thought gambling duties were going to be increased in the Budget but nothing as far as I can see.

    It's been nowhere near as "bold" or "radical" with, as is often the case, the trailers showing the best parts of the movie and those who thought we would be taxed into indentured servitude have rather overplayed their hands.

    The quandary for Reeves is trying to close the deficit without spending where it is clearly needed (SEN for example). Borrowing will go up it seems (though changes to how borrowing is calculated will muddy the waters).

    I don't see a co-ordinated assault on the very wealthy - no sign pf imaginative thinking on wealth or asset taxes such as Land Value Taxation.

    Perhaps, pace Howe, it will be the second Budget which will be the attempt to be economically transformative - we'll see.

    5.107 Remote gambling duty reform – The government will consult next year on
    proposals to bring remote gambling (meaning gambling offered over the internet,
    telephone, TV and radio) into a single tax, rather than taxing it through a three-tax
    structure. This will aim to simplify, future-proof and close loopholes in the system.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261
    Surprised triple lock survived.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    I really thought gambling duties were going to be increased in the Budget but nothing as far as I can see.

    It's been nowhere near as "bold" or "radical" with, as is often the case, the trailers showing the best parts of the movie and those who thought we would be taxed into indentured servitude have rather overplayed their hands.

    The quandary for Reeves is trying to close the deficit without spending where it is clearly needed (SEN for example). Borrowing will go up it seems (though changes to how borrowing is calculated will muddy the waters).

    I don't see a co-ordinated assault on the very wealthy - no sign pf imaginative thinking on wealth or asset taxes such as Land Value Taxation.

    Perhaps, pace Howe, it will be the second Budget which will be the attempt to be economically transformative - we'll see.

    5.107 Remote gambling duty reform – The government will consult next year on
    proposals to bring remote gambling (meaning gambling offered over the internet,
    telephone, TV and radio) into a single tax, rather than taxing it through a three-tax
    structure. This will aim to simplify, future-proof and close loopholes in the system.
    Always read the small print.....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452

    Nigelb said:

    Kansas poll from the Docking Institute

    Trump 48.2%
    Harris 43.2%
    (Trump +5.0)

    (Fall 2024 | 645 Adults)

    https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1850973817213984974

    645 sample size. They love to scrimp in the States! Spend billions on corrupt donations but not 25k on a decent opinion poll. Weird place.
    No one polls deeply red states like Kansas - apart from local outfits like this one.
    Pretty good poll for Harris, FWIW.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930

    Early voting suggests turnout in the US Presidential election will be high. Isn't high turnout generally seen as good for the Democrats?

    Yes, because they get more support from those least likely to vote namely the young and the marginalised. But if more white middle aged, non city dwelling men are bothering to vote the result could be different.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,312
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    How much of the additional £22bn for the NHS will actually get spent on fixing the structural issues it has and how much will get pissed up against the wall?

    It will fund foreign holidays and home improvements for NHS workers.
    You think NHS workers should drop the pretensions and settle for Butlins?
    We should recognise that giving pay rises to NHS workers isn't investment in the public sector but putting more money in private pockets.
    It's a bit narrow to count only tangibles as investment. Eg what if you "invest" in a new road? Are you not going to include labour costs?
    Construction costs of a tangible are investment.

    Operation costs are not.

    Those constructing a new hospital for instance fall under investment. Those operating it are not.

    Capex vs Opex. NHS workers are Opex not Capex.
    Sort of - but it can be something of a grey area. Eg new or better trained or more highly qualified staff might be needed to leverage the physical assets into improved outcomes.

    Plus all people need a pay rise now and again, whatever they're working on.
    All people do need a pay rise, yes, but that's not investment its current expenditure.

    Improved outcomes may need more staff, yes, but that again is not investment its current expenditure.

    Investment has a meaning different to current expenditure. That's not to mean there shouldn't be current expenditure, but don't call it investment if its not.
    It's not black and white, is my point. Eg you construct a new diagnostic centre and to extract proper value from it you need enough of the right people operating it. The resulting delta in staff costs isn't "investment"? I'd say it is, or let's say there's a strong case that it is. The other side of the coin is you don't want to allow gaming of the system such that expenditure which is really BAU masquerades as being an investment.
    If you stop paying those diagnostic staff they will go home. If you pay for the building/equipment, it's still there. A diagnostic centre without the necessary staff is investment, its just a bad investment.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    kinabalu said:



    Greg Sargent
    @GregTSargent

    Whoa. New CNN polls:

    MICHIGAN
    Harris 48
    Trump 43

    WISCONSIN
    Harris 51
    Trump 45

    PENNSYLVANIA
    Harris 48
    Trump 48

    https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/1851658882558410908

    Serious Musk affect there if true?
    Anecdotal Musk effect. Was thinking of buying a new car last year and was quite intrigued by Tesla. Actually buying a car this year and didn't even give Tesla a minutes thought. Can't be alone.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313

    OBR is pretty grim tbh, it's a very poor outlook irrespective of the policies and taxation decisions.

    And Jezza is on the warpath too

    Jezza Corbyn or Clarkson?
    Clarkson. Re Farms and IHT
    'Rachel Reeves. I literally daren’t comment.


    Farmers. I know that you have been shafted today. But please don’t despair. Just look after yourselves for five short years and this shower will be gone.'
    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851631222545338509


    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851663829538619545
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    edited October 30
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kansas poll from the Docking Institute

    Trump 48.2%
    Harris 43.2%
    (Trump +5.0)

    (Fall 2024 | 645 Adults)

    https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1850973817213984974

    645 sample size. They love to scrimp in the States! Spend billions on corrupt donations but not 25k on a decent opinion poll. Weird place.
    No one polls deeply red states like Kansas - apart from local outfits like this one.
    Pretty good poll for Harris, FWIW.
    Must be within margin of error, especially if Trump voters think Kansas is a lock in.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,327

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    How much of the additional £22bn for the NHS will actually get spent on fixing the structural issues it has and how much will get pissed up against the wall?

    It will fund foreign holidays and home improvements for NHS workers.
    You think NHS workers should drop the pretensions and settle for Butlins?
    We should recognise that giving pay rises to NHS workers isn't investment in the public sector but putting more money in private pockets.
    It's a bit narrow to count only tangibles as investment. Eg what if you "invest" in a new road? Are you not going to include labour costs?
    Construction costs of a tangible are investment.

    Operation costs are not.

    Those constructing a new hospital for instance fall under investment. Those operating it are not.

    Capex vs Opex. NHS workers are Opex not Capex.
    Sort of - but it can be something of a grey area. Eg new or better trained or more highly qualified staff might be needed to leverage the physical assets into improved outcomes.

    Plus all people need a pay rise now and again, whatever they're working on.
    All people do need a pay rise, yes, but that's not investment its current expenditure.

    Improved outcomes may need more staff, yes, but that again is not investment its current expenditure.

    Investment has a meaning different to current expenditure. That's not to mean there shouldn't be current expenditure, but don't call it investment if its not.
    It's not black and white, is my point. Eg you construct a new diagnostic centre and to extract proper value from it you need enough of the right people operating it. The resulting delta in staff costs isn't "investment"? I'd say it is, or let's say there's a strong case that it is. The other side of the coin is you don't want to allow gaming of the system such that expenditure which is really BAU masquerades as being an investment.
    No it is not, its operating expenditure.

    Cutting operating expenditure below where its needed can cause harms but that doesn't make it investment.

    The two are different things and it is black and white.
    Not necessarily. Eg say it costs you X to recruit and train the people you need to operate the new asset you've built. Why isn't that X part of your investment?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,258
    edited October 30

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB 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.

    The principle of higher transaction fees for multiple property owners isn't bad, though there should probably be allowances made for these kinds of situations. If anything it should be an additional 5% per property owned, that would have been bold.
    The current system of stamp duty makes the market less liquid and discourages trading down. It therefore worsens the shortage of housing.

    If you want to discourage second home ownership, then charge a 200% premium on council tax for properties that are lived in less than (say) 26 weeks a year. That would make people really think about whether they needed that place they barely live in. (It would be very expensive for me as I have a London flat I don't spend 26 weeks a year in. But it would be good for housing availability, because it would discourage people from owning assets they don't use.)
    A 200% premium on empty property isn't going to solve the issue of private renting having an economically deleterious effect. Private renting results in money flowing in the wrong direction, from workers to asset holders so using the tax system to penalise such behaviour is not something I'm greatly bothered by.
    There are multiple issues, not just one.

    Now, personally, I am very happy to rent. If the choice is between having $1m invested in my business and me renting, and $1m invested in a house, I'll choose the former every time. And people should be allowed to make that choice.

    What I think is most important to address is the fact that the housing market is inefficient. People live in houses that are too big for them, because trading down is so expensive because of stamp duty. And there are homes that are barely used.

    The tax system should be encouraging the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Everything the government does in the housing market should be framed around that question, and raising stamp duty does the opposite. It makes the market less liquid, and discourages efficient allocation.
    That's true, but relative to other countries, the UK isn't particularly afflicted by people occupying more property than they need so focusing on this might be a kind of displacement activity. The real problem is population growth relative to the housing stock.
    Firstly, isn't that the Silver Bullet fallacy? Just because something doesn't solve the whole problem we shouldn't do anything. Easing up on stamp duty but increasing council tax is probably the single easiest way to both trade down when they no longer need the additional space and to encourage people to not own homes they don't use.

    Secondly, the UK's second house "problem" is much worse than you think. In Spain or Portugal, the second homes are in places where tourists want to live. Indeed, they were built to attract moderately wealthy Brits and Germans and Swedes. In the UK, the biggest concentration of unused second homes is in Central London.
    It's more the law of diminishing returns than the Silver Bullet fallacy. We've already squeezed the existing housing stock to the point that we have one of the lowest rates of vacant property in Europe.

    Similarly for central London, there are much more obvious misallocations of resources than pied-à-terres not being lived in year-round.
    Where are you getting your numbers from?

    In London, the number of unoccupied homes - as derived from Council Tax receipts - has increased 75% since 2016 to just under 100,000.

    At 2.5 people per property, that's the equivalent of four parliamentary constituencies of empty homes in London.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,281

    kinabalu said:



    Greg Sargent
    @GregTSargent

    Whoa. New CNN polls:

    MICHIGAN
    Harris 48
    Trump 43

    WISCONSIN
    Harris 51
    Trump 45

    PENNSYLVANIA
    Harris 48
    Trump 48

    https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/1851658882558410908

    Serious Musk affect there if true?
    Anecdotal Musk effect. Was thinking of buying a new car last year and was quite intrigued by Tesla. Actually buying a car this year and didn't even give Tesla a minutes thought. Can't be alone.
    Although there may be a counterparty who used to regard electric cars a hippy communist perversion and is now converted to the faith. You win some, you lose some.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,801
    HYUFD said:

    This was largely an attack on the Tory core vote, wealthy farmers and business owners and Tory and Reform supporting small businesses, entrepreneurs and right to buy seekers.

    However if the increased cost of the NI rise and living wage rise lead to pay cuts and job losses for other workers too then it could hit Labour as well. The markets reacting badly not a great start for Starmer

    "an attack on the Tory core vote"

    The Tory core vote aren't wealthy farmers, business owners etc. The Tory core vote is made up of people that like to see endeavour pay off. The IHT stuff seems fair enough to me. What's less good is the idea that ramping up the cost of business is painless to the average citizen - it isn't and it makes us a far more sluggish economy than we should be.

    Interesting @stodge re the gambling taxes - I too thought so, but always there has been the issue of the IR saying 'no' because the personnel required would be a far greater cost than any likely revenue.

    The OBR is going to be a bit stuffed because their projections will prove to be wrong - much of this tax raising is quite damaging.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,927

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    I really thought gambling duties were going to be increased in the Budget but nothing as far as I can see.

    It's been nowhere near as "bold" or "radical" with, as is often the case, the trailers showing the best parts of the movie and those who thought we would be taxed into indentured servitude have rather overplayed their hands.

    The quandary for Reeves is trying to close the deficit without spending where it is clearly needed (SEN for example). Borrowing will go up it seems (though changes to how borrowing is calculated will muddy the waters).

    I don't see a co-ordinated assault on the very wealthy - no sign pf imaginative thinking on wealth or asset taxes such as Land Value Taxation.

    Perhaps, pace Howe, it will be the second Budget which will be the attempt to be economically transformative - we'll see.

    5.107 Remote gambling duty reform – The government will consult next year on
    proposals to bring remote gambling (meaning gambling offered over the internet,
    telephone, TV and radio) into a single tax, rather than taxing it through a three-tax
    structure. This will aim to simplify, future-proof and close loopholes in the system.
    Well, yes but I was (and many in horse racing were) expecting General Betting Duty to be increased from 15% to 20%. Share prices of groups like Entain and Flutter went up after Reeves sat down.

    It could be the 21% rate applied to Remote Gaming Duty is applied to both Pool Betting Duty and General Betting Duty following the review next year.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    How much of the additional £22bn for the NHS will actually get spent on fixing the structural issues it has and how much will get pissed up against the wall?

    It will fund foreign holidays and home improvements for NHS workers.
    You think NHS workers should drop the pretensions and settle for Butlins?
    We should recognise that giving pay rises to NHS workers isn't investment in the public sector but putting more money in private pockets.
    It's a bit narrow to count only tangibles as investment. Eg what if you "invest" in a new road? Are you not going to include labour costs?
    Construction costs of a tangible are investment.

    Operation costs are not.

    Those constructing a new hospital for instance fall under investment. Those operating it are not.

    Capex vs Opex. NHS workers are Opex not Capex.
    Sort of - but it can be something of a grey area. Eg new or better trained or more highly qualified staff might be needed to leverage the physical assets into improved outcomes.

    Plus all people need a pay rise now and again, whatever they're working on.
    All people do need a pay rise, yes, but that's not investment its current expenditure.

    Improved outcomes may need more staff, yes, but that again is not investment its current expenditure.

    Investment has a meaning different to current expenditure. That's not to mean there shouldn't be current expenditure, but don't call it investment if its not.
    It's not black and white, is my point. Eg you construct a new diagnostic centre and to extract proper value from it you need enough of the right people operating it. The resulting delta in staff costs isn't "investment"? I'd say it is, or let's say there's a strong case that it is. The other side of the coin is you don't want to allow gaming of the system such that expenditure which is really BAU masquerades as being an investment.
    No it is not, its operating expenditure.

    Cutting operating expenditure below where its needed can cause harms but that doesn't make it investment.

    The two are different things and it is black and white.
    Not necessarily. Eg say it costs you X to recruit and train the people you need to operate the new asset you've built. Why isn't that X part of your investment?
    Because its an operating expense.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    HYUFD said:

    OBR is pretty grim tbh, it's a very poor outlook irrespective of the policies and taxation decisions.

    And Jezza is on the warpath too

    Jezza Corbyn or Clarkson?
    Clarkson. Re Farms and IHT
    'Rachel Reeves. I literally daren’t comment.


    Farmers. I know that you have been shafted today. But please don’t despair. Just look after yourselves for five short years and this shower will be gone.'
    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851631222545338509


    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851663829538619545
    Screw small family farms offering fresh local produce. We can still fly in our avacados for a wizard smashed Avo and latte brekkie. That's what's important.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,312
    HYUFD said:

    OBR is pretty grim tbh, it's a very poor outlook irrespective of the policies and taxation decisions.

    And Jezza is on the warpath too

    Jezza Corbyn or Clarkson?
    Clarkson. Re Farms and IHT
    'Rachel Reeves. I literally daren’t comment.


    Farmers. I know that you have been shafted today. But please don’t despair. Just look after yourselves for five short years and this shower will be gone.'
    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851631222545338509


    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851663829538619545
    One test of a policy is whether the other lot will ever reverse it.
    Do you think a Tory PM in 2029 really would? Would they do compensation as well?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    How much of the additional £22bn for the NHS will actually get spent on fixing the structural issues it has and how much will get pissed up against the wall?

    It will fund foreign holidays and home improvements for NHS workers.
    You think NHS workers should drop the pretensions and settle for Butlins?
    We should recognise that giving pay rises to NHS workers isn't investment in the public sector but putting more money in private pockets.
    It's a bit narrow to count only tangibles as investment. Eg what if you "invest" in a new road? Are you not going to include labour costs?
    Construction costs of a tangible are investment.

    Operation costs are not.

    Those constructing a new hospital for instance fall under investment. Those operating it are not.

    Capex vs Opex. NHS workers are Opex not Capex.
    Sort of - but it can be something of a grey area. Eg new or better trained or more highly qualified staff might be needed to leverage the physical assets into improved outcomes.

    Plus all people need a pay rise now and again, whatever they're working on.
    All people do need a pay rise, yes, but that's not investment its current expenditure.

    Improved outcomes may need more staff, yes, but that again is not investment its current expenditure.

    Investment has a meaning different to current expenditure. That's not to mean there shouldn't be current expenditure, but don't call it investment if its not.
    It's not black and white, is my point. Eg you construct a new diagnostic centre and to extract proper value from it you need enough of the right people operating it. The resulting delta in staff costs isn't "investment"? I'd say it is, or let's say there's a strong case that it is. The other side of the coin is you don't want to allow gaming of the system such that expenditure which is really BAU masquerades as being an investment.
    No it is not, its operating expenditure.

    Cutting operating expenditure below where its needed can cause harms but that doesn't make it investment.

    The two are different things and it is black and white.
    Not necessarily. Eg say it costs you X to recruit and train the people you need to operate the new asset you've built. Why isn't that X part of your investment?
    You are correct it is a grey area. Not everything is clearly investment or day to day spending. It is not an argument that will ever be won on here though and Brown made this worse by claiming things that were day to day spending were investment when they werent. I would not be surprised if this govt does the same. But in theory there is significant potential extra day to day spending that is also investment and would save us money over a 5-10 year cycle.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,927
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kansas poll from the Docking Institute

    Trump 48.2%
    Harris 43.2%
    (Trump +5.0)

    (Fall 2024 | 645 Adults)

    https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1850973817213984974

    645 sample size. They love to scrimp in the States! Spend billions on corrupt donations but not 25k on a decent opinion poll. Weird place.
    No one polls deeply red states like Kansas - apart from local outfits like this one.
    Pretty good poll for Harris, FWIW.
    Trump won Kansas by 15 points last time so if there a uniform 5% swing to Harris we would be in landslide territory for the Democrats. I don't expect Harris to win Kansas though it wouldn't be surprising if Harris and Trump put up their best performances in their least winnable States.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,411
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Weird budget. Lots of additional cash for SEND and carer's allowance, which is expected from a Labour government. But no abolishment of the two child limit?

    Billions on the fuel duty freeze, but bus fares up 50% and cycling funding less than what we had under Johnson?

    But it's the lack of palpable, physical investment that is oddest - it would make the borrowing more tolerable, even for PB Tories.

    There is little to no talk of "reform" either....other than planning, but even that, all gone very quiet.
    Note the big increases in spending on justice and education though. That is a surprise, though the former is probably critical for Labour. Cannot be seen to be weak on crime.
    I thought Justice was approximately inflation + 4%.

    Did I get that wrong?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB 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.

    The principle of higher transaction fees for multiple property owners isn't bad, though there should probably be allowances made for these kinds of situations. If anything it should be an additional 5% per property owned, that would have been bold.
    The current system of stamp duty makes the market less liquid and discourages trading down. It therefore worsens the shortage of housing.

    If you want to discourage second home ownership, then charge a 200% premium on council tax for properties that are lived in less than (say) 26 weeks a year. That would make people really think about whether they needed that place they barely live in. (It would be very expensive for me as I have a London flat I don't spend 26 weeks a year in. But it would be good for housing availability, because it would discourage people from owning assets they don't use.)
    A 200% premium on empty property isn't going to solve the issue of private renting having an economically deleterious effect. Private renting results in money flowing in the wrong direction, from workers to asset holders so using the tax system to penalise such behaviour is not something I'm greatly bothered by.
    There are multiple issues, not just one.

    Now, personally, I am very happy to rent. If the choice is between having $1m invested in my business and me renting, and $1m invested in a house, I'll choose the former every time. And people should be allowed to make that choice.

    What I think is most important to address is the fact that the housing market is inefficient. People live in houses that are too big for them, because trading down is so expensive because of stamp duty. And there are homes that are barely used.

    The tax system should be encouraging the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Everything the government does in the housing market should be framed around that question, and raising stamp duty does the opposite. It makes the market less liquid, and discourages efficient allocation.
    That's true, but relative to other countries, the UK isn't particularly afflicted by people occupying more property than they need so focusing on this might be a kind of displacement activity. The real problem is population growth relative to the housing stock.
    Firstly, isn't that the Silver Bullet fallacy? Just because something doesn't solve the whole problem we shouldn't do anything. Easing up on stamp duty but increasing council tax is probably the single easiest way to both trade down when they no longer need the additional space and to encourage people to not own homes they don't use.

    Secondly, the UK's second house "problem" is much worse than you think. In Spain or Portugal, the second homes are in places where tourists want to live. Indeed, they were built to attract moderately wealthy Brits and Germans and Swedes. In the UK, the biggest concentration of unused second homes is in Central London.
    It's more the law of diminishing returns than the Silver Bullet fallacy. We've already squeezed the existing housing stock to the point that we have one of the lowest rates of vacant property in Europe.

    Similarly for central London, there are much more obvious misallocations of resources than pied-à-terres not being lived in year-round.
    Where are you getting your numbers from?

    In London, the number of unoccupied homes - as derived from Council Tax receipts - has increased 75% since 2016 to just under 100,000.

    At 2.5 people per property, that's the equivalent of four parliamentary constituencies of empty homes in London.
    The OECD. Look at the charts on pages 3 and 4:

    https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hm1-1-housing-stock-and-construction.pdf
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kansas poll from the Docking Institute

    Trump 48.2%
    Harris 43.2%
    (Trump +5.0)

    (Fall 2024 | 645 Adults)

    https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1850973817213984974

    645 sample size. They love to scrimp in the States! Spend billions on corrupt donations but not 25k on a decent opinion poll. Weird place.
    No one polls deeply red states like Kansas - apart from local outfits like this one.
    Pretty good poll for Harris, FWIW.
    Must be within margin of error, especially if Trump voters think Kansas is a lock in.
    State Republican jackassery on abortion has been very controversial in Kansas. Might give them a scare, but I doubt it’s seriously in contention.

    Early voting unusually brisk there.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915

    kinabalu said:



    Greg Sargent
    @GregTSargent

    Whoa. New CNN polls:

    MICHIGAN
    Harris 48
    Trump 43

    WISCONSIN
    Harris 51
    Trump 45

    PENNSYLVANIA
    Harris 48
    Trump 48

    https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/1851658882558410908

    Serious Musk affect there if true?
    Anecdotal Musk effect. Was thinking of buying a new car last year and was quite intrigued by Tesla. Actually buying a car this year and didn't even give Tesla a minutes thought. Can't be alone.
    Although there may be a counterparty who used to regard electric cars a hippy communist perversion and is now converted to the faith. You win some, you lose some.
    Is his name Donald? He will take the car, but you'll need some heavy duty lawyers to ever get payment.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,169
    edited October 30
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    OBR is pretty grim tbh, it's a very poor outlook irrespective of the policies and taxation decisions.

    And Jezza is on the warpath too

    Jezza Corbyn or Clarkson?
    Clarkson. Re Farms and IHT
    'Rachel Reeves. I literally daren’t comment.


    Farmers. I know that you have been shafted today. But please don’t despair. Just look after yourselves for five short years and this shower will be gone.'
    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851631222545338509


    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851663829538619545
    One test of a policy is whether the other lot will ever reverse it.
    Do you think a Tory PM in 2029 really would? Would they do compensation as well?
    Reverse this? Yes. The next Tory Gvt will do something big on IHT incorporating that, because it will cement a chunk of voters.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,494

    spudgfsh said:

    Labour are touting “a penny off a pint” as a selling point of the budget.

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1851617817059045680

    Which has basically been overshadowed by the E-NIC changes
    It's a big shadow. Expectation is extra 30p per pint with everything in.
    I'll have my beer without anything in please....
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    How much of the additional £22bn for the NHS will actually get spent on fixing the structural issues it has and how much will get pissed up against the wall?

    It will fund foreign holidays and home improvements for NHS workers.
    You think NHS workers should drop the pretensions and settle for Butlins?
    We should recognise that giving pay rises to NHS workers isn't investment in the public sector but putting more money in private pockets.
    It's a bit narrow to count only tangibles as investment. Eg what if you "invest" in a new road? Are you not going to include labour costs?
    Construction costs of a tangible are investment.

    Operation costs are not.

    Those constructing a new hospital for instance fall under investment. Those operating it are not.

    Capex vs Opex. NHS workers are Opex not Capex.
    Sort of - but it can be something of a grey area. Eg new or better trained or more highly qualified staff might be needed to leverage the physical assets into improved outcomes.

    Plus all people need a pay rise now and again, whatever they're working on.
    All people do need a pay rise, yes, but that's not investment its current expenditure.

    Improved outcomes may need more staff, yes, but that again is not investment its current expenditure.

    Investment has a meaning different to current expenditure. That's not to mean there shouldn't be current expenditure, but don't call it investment if its not.
    It's not black and white, is my point. Eg you construct a new diagnostic centre and to extract proper value from it you need enough of the right people operating it. The resulting delta in staff costs isn't "investment"? I'd say it is, or let's say there's a strong case that it is. The other side of the coin is you don't want to allow gaming of the system such that expenditure which is really BAU masquerades as being an investment.
    No it is not, its operating expenditure.

    Cutting operating expenditure below where its needed can cause harms but that doesn't make it investment.

    The two are different things and it is black and white.
    Not necessarily. Eg say it costs you X to recruit and train the people you need to operate the new asset you've built. Why isn't that X part of your investment?
    You are correct it is a grey area. Not everything is clearly investment or day to day spending. It is not an argument that will ever be won on here though and Brown made this worse by claiming things that were day to day spending were investment when they werent. I would not be surprised if this govt does the same. But in theory there is significant potential extra day to day spending that is also investment and would save us money over a 5-10 year cycle.
    Its not that grey.

    Are you getting an asset that will last for years and that you can amortise over a period of years? Then its an investment.

    Are you paying for something that is gone if you stop paying for it? Then its current expenditure.

    If you stop paying an employees wages they go elsewhere, if they're operational then they're simply not an investment. If you pay an employee to build something that is still there many years after they've gone on the other hand ...
  • eekeek Posts: 28,433

    kinabalu said:



    Greg Sargent
    @GregTSargent

    Whoa. New CNN polls:

    MICHIGAN
    Harris 48
    Trump 43

    WISCONSIN
    Harris 51
    Trump 45

    PENNSYLVANIA
    Harris 48
    Trump 48

    https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/1851658882558410908

    Serious Musk affect there if true?
    Anecdotal Musk effect. Was thinking of buying a new car last year and was quite intrigued by Tesla. Actually buying a car this year and didn't even give Tesla a minutes thought. Can't be alone.
    There are multiple reasons why I wouldn't purchase a Tesla

    Elon is one, the fact you can't open a door manually in an emergency is another..
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    edited October 30
    biggles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    OBR is pretty grim tbh, it's a very poor outlook irrespective of the policies and taxation decisions.

    And Jezza is on the warpath too

    Jezza Corbyn or Clarkson?
    Clarkson. Re Farms and IHT
    'Rachel Reeves. I literally daren’t comment.


    Farmers. I know that you have been shafted today. But please don’t despair. Just look after yourselves for five short years and this shower will be gone.'
    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851631222545338509


    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851663829538619545
    One test of a policy is whether the other lot will ever reverse it.
    Do you think a Tory PM in 2029 really would? Would they do compensation as well?
    Reverse this? Yes. The next Tory Gvt will or something big on IHT incorporating that, because it will cement a chunk of voters.
    Yep. The next right wing government will use IHT like the sainted Margaret did home ownership to secure future votes
    Labour are dead in the water in rural seats now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    AtlasIntel

    Wisconsin Harris 49% Trump 49%

    Pennsylvania Harris 47% Trump 50%

    North Carolina Harris 49% Trump 48%

    Michigan Harris 48% Trump 49%

    Nevada Harris 48% Trump 48%

    Georgia Harris 48% Trump 51%

    Arizona Harris 47% Trump 51%
    https://www.atlasintel.org/poll/usa-swing-states-2024-10-29



    Quantus Michigan Harris 49.2% Trump 48.5%

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KV-ksokyI9Flj6QGUT7CUR2Gia7DYaSi/view
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452
    kinabalu said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal 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.
    No it isn't, it's 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.6% for the final three years of the forecast. Going from 1.5% to 1.6% isn't anything like picking up and forecasts more than a year out are worthless to that degree of accuracy, the error ratio is massive.
    Ah you're right, I was misreading the OBR's Chart 3.3.

    (Which is interesting anyway - have a look).
    With forecasts that far ahead, we’ll be lucky if it is accurate to + or minus….
    It's not that we'd expect the forecast to be accurate in itself, but the difference between the forecast now and the forecast in March tells us interesting things about what has changed in the interim.

    The comparison isn't good this time.
    I can't believe the energy spent over forecasts that vary by tiny fractions over 5 years, that no-one believes are particularly accurate, based on plans from both parties that we all know wont be followed.
    The idea that due to government policy we can shoot upwards and out of the pack (of our peers) on growth is delusional imo and does us no favours.
    Not entirely true.

    Our planning is undoubtedly more growth hobbling than many of our peers.
    We could make a significant improvement pretty quickly, with little fiscal cost, if we chose.

    Nuclear, for example, costs us literally double what it does in Europe, and nearly four times S Korea’s cost per MWh.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,881
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB 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.

    The principle of higher transaction fees for multiple property owners isn't bad, though there should probably be allowances made for these kinds of situations. If anything it should be an additional 5% per property owned, that would have been bold.
    The current system of stamp duty makes the market less liquid and discourages trading down. It therefore worsens the shortage of housing.

    If you want to discourage second home ownership, then charge a 200% premium on council tax for properties that are lived in less than (say) 26 weeks a year. That would make people really think about whether they needed that place they barely live in. (It would be very expensive for me as I have a London flat I don't spend 26 weeks a year in. But it would be good for housing availability, because it would discourage people from owning assets they don't use.)
    A 200% premium on empty property isn't going to solve the issue of private renting having an economically deleterious effect. Private renting results in money flowing in the wrong direction, from workers to asset holders so using the tax system to penalise such behaviour is not something I'm greatly bothered by.
    There are multiple issues, not just one.

    Now, personally, I am very happy to rent. If the choice is between having $1m invested in my business and me renting, and $1m invested in a house, I'll choose the former every time. And people should be allowed to make that choice.

    What I think is most important to address is the fact that the housing market is inefficient. People live in houses that are too big for them, because trading down is so expensive because of stamp duty. And there are homes that are barely used.

    The tax system should be encouraging the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Everything the government does in the housing market should be framed around that question, and raising stamp duty does the opposite. It makes the market less liquid, and discourages efficient allocation.

    There are bigger barriers to downsizing than monetary ones...for example I rent a house with an extra bedroom because not doing so puts a barrier on my son and his wife visiting or friends visiting that will cost them 200 a night in hotel fees thus discouraging them from doing so. The bedroom is occupied maybe 8 weeks a year.....that costs me maybe 1200 extra a year....guests would spend 10k+ on hotel/b&b fees.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,775
    Mortimer said:

    Eabhal said:

    Weird budget. Lots of additional cash for SEND and carer's allowance, which is expected from a Labour government. But no abolishment of the two child limit?

    Billions on the fuel duty freeze, but bus fares up 50% and cycling funding less than what we had under Johnson?

    But it's the lack of palpable, physical investment that is oddest - it would make the borrowing more tolerable, even for PB Tories.

    Lol. 'Bike Funding'

    Wasting money digging up roads more like
    The cycle lane on Embankment gets about 2.8 million journeys a year.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,494
    Pulpstar said:

    I think Labour should have just left beer duty tbh. A real gimmick and noone is going to s3 this penny as pub overheads increase

    The fact that it's not going up is not to be overlooked but....

    https://x.com/murderersphil/status/1851682557198237729

    Murderers Pub - Norwich
    @murderersphil
    ·
    14m
    Replying to
    @TheVickyMD

    @UKLabour
    and 3 others
    This budget will cost our pub £20k a year from increased Business rates - an extra £500 pw in increased minimum wage - £80 pw in NI contributions Not sure where they think we can squeeze a penny off a pint!! - Maintain any profit or investment, without raising prices
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,258

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB 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.

    The principle of higher transaction fees for multiple property owners isn't bad, though there should probably be allowances made for these kinds of situations. If anything it should be an additional 5% per property owned, that would have been bold.
    The current system of stamp duty makes the market less liquid and discourages trading down. It therefore worsens the shortage of housing.

    If you want to discourage second home ownership, then charge a 200% premium on council tax for properties that are lived in less than (say) 26 weeks a year. That would make people really think about whether they needed that place they barely live in. (It would be very expensive for me as I have a London flat I don't spend 26 weeks a year in. But it would be good for housing availability, because it would discourage people from owning assets they don't use.)
    A 200% premium on empty property isn't going to solve the issue of private renting having an economically deleterious effect. Private renting results in money flowing in the wrong direction, from workers to asset holders so using the tax system to penalise such behaviour is not something I'm greatly bothered by.
    There are multiple issues, not just one.

    Now, personally, I am very happy to rent. If the choice is between having $1m invested in my business and me renting, and $1m invested in a house, I'll choose the former every time. And people should be allowed to make that choice.

    What I think is most important to address is the fact that the housing market is inefficient. People live in houses that are too big for them, because trading down is so expensive because of stamp duty. And there are homes that are barely used.

    The tax system should be encouraging the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Everything the government does in the housing market should be framed around that question, and raising stamp duty does the opposite. It makes the market less liquid, and discourages efficient allocation.
    That's true, but relative to other countries, the UK isn't particularly afflicted by people occupying more property than they need so focusing on this might be a kind of displacement activity. The real problem is population growth relative to the housing stock.
    Firstly, isn't that the Silver Bullet fallacy? Just because something doesn't solve the whole problem we shouldn't do anything. Easing up on stamp duty but increasing council tax is probably the single easiest way to both trade down when they no longer need the additional space and to encourage people to not own homes they don't use.

    Secondly, the UK's second house "problem" is much worse than you think. In Spain or Portugal, the second homes are in places where tourists want to live. Indeed, they were built to attract moderately wealthy Brits and Germans and Swedes. In the UK, the biggest concentration of unused second homes is in Central London.
    It's more the law of diminishing returns than the Silver Bullet fallacy. We've already squeezed the existing housing stock to the point that we have one of the lowest rates of vacant property in Europe.

    Similarly for central London, there are much more obvious misallocations of resources than pied-à-terres not being lived in year-round.
    Where are you getting your numbers from?

    In London, the number of unoccupied homes - as derived from Council Tax receipts - has increased 75% since 2016 to just under 100,000.

    At 2.5 people per property, that's the equivalent of four parliamentary constituencies of empty homes in London.
    The OECD. Look at the charts on pages 3 and 4:

    https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hm1-1-housing-stock-and-construction.pdf
    Yeah, but that's on the basis that all housing is the same.

    It's not.

    The number of empty homes in London has risen 75% since 2016 to just under 100,000. That's a massive rise.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,327
    edited October 30

    kinabalu said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal 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.
    No it isn't, it's 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.6% for the final three years of the forecast. Going from 1.5% to 1.6% isn't anything like picking up and forecasts more than a year out are worthless to that degree of accuracy, the error ratio is massive.
    Ah you're right, I was misreading the OBR's Chart 3.3.

    (Which is interesting anyway - have a look).
    With forecasts that far ahead, we’ll be lucky if it is accurate to + or minus….
    It's not that we'd expect the forecast to be accurate in itself, but the difference between the forecast now and the forecast in March tells us interesting things about what has changed in the interim.

    The comparison isn't good this time.
    I can't believe the energy spent over forecasts that vary by tiny fractions over 5 years, that no-one believes are particularly accurate, based on plans from both parties that we all know wont be followed.
    The idea that due to government policy we can shoot upwards and out of the pack (of our peers) on growth is delusional imo and does us no favours.
    My suspicion is governments can't improve growth by much, but they can and do make it significantly worse when they try! They can improve growth a little over a long time by investing but dont see the electoral benefits of such investment until after they are kicked out, so don't bother.
    Yes. That's pretty much it. I'm afraid a transformation in "growth" has become a way of fantasizing about the future. Course we could avoid doing any more silly stuff like leaving big nearby frictionless trading markets. That will help.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Early voting suggests turnout in the US Presidential election will be high. Isn't high turnout generally seen as good for the Democrats?

    It used to be. But much of Trump's support comes from otherwise unlikely voters and Dem support increasingly correlates to high education, ie people who will vote even in a low-turnout election.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,261
    the government's promise to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the developed world have been undermined by its own financial watchdog.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility said the package of economic measures unveiled by Reeves would ultimately "leave GDP largely unchanged in five years".

    Asked about the underwhelming forecasts, she said: "I absolutely accept this is not summit of my ambitions. I want the economy to grow faster than this."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86q31wlj39o
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,801

    biggles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    OBR is pretty grim tbh, it's a very poor outlook irrespective of the policies and taxation decisions.

    And Jezza is on the warpath too

    Jezza Corbyn or Clarkson?
    Clarkson. Re Farms and IHT
    'Rachel Reeves. I literally daren’t comment.


    Farmers. I know that you have been shafted today. But please don’t despair. Just look after yourselves for five short years and this shower will be gone.'
    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851631222545338509


    https://x.com/JeremyClarkson/status/1851663829538619545
    One test of a policy is whether the other lot will ever reverse it.
    Do you think a Tory PM in 2029 really would? Would they do compensation as well?
    Reverse this? Yes. The next Tory Gvt will or something big on IHT incorporating that, because it will cement a chunk of voters.
    Yep. The next right wing government will use IHT like the sainted Margaret did home ownership to secure future votes
    Labour are dead in the water in rural seats now.
    IHT affects so few people it's certainly not a vote winner. I was once what I'd suggest as a Tory with strong rightward economic views and rather leftward libertarian views. I'm no longer a Tory though.

    I think inheritance tax is really quite a good tax. I quite understand that it's an emotional issue - people want to leave something that says they were something rather than nothing, but I think that a heavy IHT regime forces people to go out and do stuff.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    edited October 30
    spudgfsh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Labour should have just left beer duty tbh. A real gimmick and noone is going to s3 this penny as pub overheads increase

    The fact that it's not going up is not to be overlooked but....

    https://x.com/murderersphil/status/1851682557198237729

    Murderers Pub - Norwich
    @murderersphil
    ·
    14m
    Replying to
    @TheVickyMD

    @UKLabour
    and 3 others
    This budget will cost our pub £20k a year from increased Business rates - an extra £500 pw in increased minimum wage - £80 pw in NI contributions Not sure where they think we can squeeze a penny off a pint!! - Maintain any profit or investment, without raising prices
    Good pub The Murderers. Also known as The Gardeners Arms. Called the Murderers because the Landlords daughter was killed by her estranged husband there in 1895. Used to go there for lunch in the 90s (19 not 18!)
This discussion has been closed.