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.
Not everyone is the same. Some people need their spare bedroom. And some people have more spare bedrooms than they need.
Let's take OGH. A few years ago, he wanted to sell his five bedroom house in Bedford, and buy a nice apartment overlooking the river.
And he didn't bother because it was going to result in close about £75,000 of transaction fees. The result is that a family who would benefit from a large house is in a smaller one because the system discouraged OGH from trading down.
I've posted the data before, but since the introduction of higher levels of stamp duty, the number of empty bedrooms in the UK has gone through the roof, because government policy is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
@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!)
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.
@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
I can quite imagine SPADs thinking that kind of gimmick will be popular without realising how negative it can become. Labour maybe need a Prescott type to ground them.
Similarly the contrast between natural Rishi and performative Rishi post spin doctoring today was immense. I find one version interesting, intelligent and affable, the other angry, deceitful and annoying.
Politicians should pay far less attention to their SPADs and spin doctors.
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.
IHT is hated far more than it effects. It's (Imo) pernicious and reducing or removing ot will always be a vote winner
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
@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!)
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
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.
Not everyone is the same. Some people need their spare bedroom. And some people have more spare bedrooms than they need.
Let's take OGH. A few years ago, he wanted to sell his five bedroom house in Bedford, and buy a nice apartment overlooking the river.
And he didn't bother because it was going to result in close about £75,000 of transaction fees. The result is that a family who would benefit from a large house is in a smaller one because the system discouraged OGH from trading down.
I've posted the data before, but since the introduction of higher levels of stamp duty, the number of empty bedrooms in the UK has gone through the roof, because government policy is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
Most people however won't be downsizing from a 5 bedroom house. The average number of bedrooms in a uk house is 2.95
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.
The pandemic Nightingales come to mind.
Not permanent -> not investment is a good rule of thumb imo. I'd argue the nightingales are the cost of not investing in sufficient capacity beforehand.
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.
GB did have a tendency to call all public spending "investment".
In fact I'm quite attracted to the opposite approach - that spending is spending and all that matters is whether you can afford it and it's for good causes.
Arguments then about what are "good causes" of course.
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
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.
No they aren't. Most workers voted Labour or LD in July but most pensioners, farmers and small businessmen still voted Tory and they are the actual Tory core vote who were largely shafted by Labour today and pensioners with the winter fuel allowance cut.
Though as you say the increasing cost of NI on employers pay may lead to workers on average salaries also seeing their pay cut or redundancies
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
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.
Look, I'm a retired accountant (chartered) so I'm pulling rank and ending this in my favour.
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."
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."
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
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.
Not everyone is the same. Some people need their spare bedroom. And some people have more spare bedrooms than they need.
Let's take OGH. A few years ago, he wanted to sell his five bedroom house in Bedford, and buy a nice apartment overlooking the river.
And he didn't bother because it was going to result in close about £75,000 of transaction fees. The result is that a family who would benefit from a large house is in a smaller one because the system discouraged OGH from trading down.
I've posted the data before, but since the introduction of higher levels of stamp duty, the number of empty bedrooms in the UK has gone through the roof, because government policy is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
Most people however won't be downsizing from a 5 bedroom house. The average number of bedrooms in a uk house is 2.95
Most people who could downsize are probably in my postion rather than ogh's rattling round in a 5 bedroom house
I am not proposing a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets. There are, however, hundreds of little things that have small positive benefits.
We should be doing those things, because that's how businesses and countries get better. It's a process of continued iteration.
And lowering stamp duty - or maybe even abolishing it for people who are trading down - would clearly be a positive. It's not going to solve the housing crisis, obviously. But if it means that one-in-ten people now aren't living in homes that are too big for them, then that is a net positive.
It's also EASY. It's a simple change of the rules, that would make a difference.
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
"Love policy and ignore politics" is a good line but it's the central delusion of sensible centrism to think that everything can be depoliticised.
Politics is in fact a perfectly good way of resolving many issues, that's why we have it. But since 'playing politics' is pejorative we try to pretend everything has objective technocratic solutions (or people do the reverse extreme and think politics can overcome the things that are objective facts).
"£60.1 billion is due to the direct effect of policy changes in this Budget, the largest sustained increase in spending in at least the past 15 years."
its an astute policy. Farms over 1000 acres will either cough up, or sell off a field for building, thereby helping with the housing numbers.
No it is an appalling policy. Farms which can't afford to pay it and which know the land and local community will sell up and be bought by agri corporations
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Free them from the intolerable burdens of having a country of their own.
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.
Not everyone is the same. Some people need their spare bedroom. And some people have more spare bedrooms than they need.
Let's take OGH. A few years ago, he wanted to sell his five bedroom house in Bedford, and buy a nice apartment overlooking the river.
And he didn't bother because it was going to result in close about £75,000 of transaction fees. The result is that a family who would benefit from a large house is in a smaller one because the system discouraged OGH from trading down.
I've posted the data before, but since the introduction of higher levels of stamp duty, the number of empty bedrooms in the UK has gone through the roof, because government policy is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
Most people however won't be downsizing from a 5 bedroom house. The average number of bedrooms in a uk house is 2.95
Most people who could downsize are probably in my postion rather than ogh's rattling round in a 5 bedroom house
Quite likely so, but there a multiple houses near me with 4 or 5 bedrooms but with only 2 occupants, including my own. The cost of downsizing is part of it, but additionally the fact that council tax is only a couple of thousand more than a 2 bed terrace makes only a small benefit in running costs.
Additionally we have lots more stuff than when we last lived in a 2 bed terrace, and have got rather used to spreading out. finally there is little to down size to in our immdiate area, meaning disrupting all our social contacts if we move further afield.
There are different ways to address these various problems, but encouraging downsizing is a very straightforward way to improve the housing situation with neither the financial cost nor NIMBY/environmental impact of building.
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.
Labour version of Osborne's first is the comparison I suppose - getting the ugly budget out of the way while trying not to scare the horses too much. That rise in the cost of borrowing is more of a tick up in context.
Reeves will hope that the tax rises aren't felt too badly if the economy does OK, the cash for public services staves off immediate crisis, and buys Labour time to let what it believes are good policies and reforms to have some effect. Then hopefully have some room down the line for generosity towards the end of the parliament.
Whether it works or not is another matter.It didn't work out in the end for Osborne, as the growth never really arrived. He later had his 'omnishambles'. But then did win an election, only to be given the finger by the public a year later. Reeves and Labour better hope for a better fate.
But a perfectly sensible approach to what Labour are trying to do - namely keep the public finances relatively sane despite fantastical previous figures, while channelling some money towards a crumbling public realm and boosting investment.
What was wrong with Truss was sequencing and scale. Her's was rather like the Tory version of the Labour one John McDonnell would've given if Corbyn was still leader.
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
“Surrender” would be Zelensky giving himself up, and the Russian flag being installed over kyev. You’re a sensible chat. You can’t really believe that a Republican white house (even run by trump) would force that.
The question really is what terms would be forced for a ceasefire. I imagine it most likely would be frozen lines. And that’s a far worse outcome for Ukraine than we all hoped possible in autumn 2022 to spring 2023. But it might turn out to be a superior outcome than is possible by winter 2025. I don’t know the answer to that hypothetical. None of us do. But the idea of Ukraine forcing their way to the Sea of Azov and into crimea seems fairly fanciful at this point.
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.
Not everyone is the same. Some people need their spare bedroom. And some people have more spare bedrooms than they need.
Let's take OGH. A few years ago, he wanted to sell his five bedroom house in Bedford, and buy a nice apartment overlooking the river.
And he didn't bother because it was going to result in close about £75,000 of transaction fees. The result is that a family who would benefit from a large house is in a smaller one because the system discouraged OGH from trading down.
I've posted the data before, but since the introduction of higher levels of stamp duty, the number of empty bedrooms in the UK has gone through the roof, because government policy is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
Most people however won't be downsizing from a 5 bedroom house. The average number of bedrooms in a uk house is 2.95
Most people who could downsize are probably in my postion rather than ogh's rattling round in a 5 bedroom house
I am not proposing a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets. There are, however, hundreds of little things that have small positive benefits.
We should be doing those things, because that's how businesses and countries get better. It's a process of continued iteration.
And lowering stamp duty - or maybe even abolishing it for people who are trading down - would clearly be a positive. It's not going to solve the housing crisis, obviously. But if it means that one-in-ten people now aren't living in homes that are too big for them, then that is a net positive.
It's also EASY. It's a simple change of the rules, that would make a difference.
I wasn't actually arguing that the things you highlighted make it difficult, merely pointing out that many with surplus bedrooms also have reason's they don't wish to downsize. We already have a problem with loneliness for the elderly, they quite rightly have no wish to discourage people visiting
I genuinely seem incapable of understanding economics, so once you get beyond basic taxes or spending I cannot really form much opinion on effects on longterm or structural issues, and can only muddle along to mood music.
Which usually has the appearance to those such as me as either acceptance of managed decline or hopes and dreams leading to growth, somehow. Think tanks are no use, they just push an ideology they already believe in so any analysis they present is worth very little.
All of which means I am left to simply trust in our political leaders and senior civil servants.
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
I suspect it is aimed at very wealthy individuals who buy up large farms to avoid IHT.
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
its an astute policy. Farms over 1000 acres will either cough up, or sell off a field for building, thereby helping with the housing numbers.
The bottleneck to new development is fields, not planning permission?
Planning permission too, but there are plans for that too.
people want to live on greenfield sites, and generally build costs are substantially cheaper. Additionally there is a particular need for new housing in agricultural counties like the West Country.
Getting more land on the market is another piece of the jigsaw.
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.
Not everyone is the same. Some people need their spare bedroom. And some people have more spare bedrooms than they need.
Let's take OGH. A few years ago, he wanted to sell his five bedroom house in Bedford, and buy a nice apartment overlooking the river.
And he didn't bother because it was going to result in close about £75,000 of transaction fees. The result is that a family who would benefit from a large house is in a smaller one because the system discouraged OGH from trading down.
I've posted the data before, but since the introduction of higher levels of stamp duty, the number of empty bedrooms in the UK has gone through the roof, because government policy is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
Most people however won't be downsizing from a 5 bedroom house. The average number of bedrooms in a uk house is 2.95
Most people who could downsize are probably in my postion rather than ogh's rattling round in a 5 bedroom house
I am not proposing a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets. There are, however, hundreds of little things that have small positive benefits.
We should be doing those things, because that's how businesses and countries get better. It's a process of continued iteration.
And lowering stamp duty - or maybe even abolishing it for people who are trading down - would clearly be a positive. It's not going to solve the housing crisis, obviously. But if it means that one-in-ten people now aren't living in homes that are too big for them, then that is a net positive.
It's also EASY. It's a simple change of the rules, that would make a difference.
Agree it would be a good policy. But introducing an annual property charge to compensate for the lost revenue would probably be quite unpopular and have many more losers than winners. People who had just paid stamp duty would feel quite shortchanged.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
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.
Labour version of Osborne's first is the comparison I suppose - getting the ugly budget out of the way while trying not to scare the horses too much. That rise in the cost of borrowing is more of a tick up in context.
Reeves will hope that the tax rises aren't felt too badly if the economy does OK, the cash for public services staves off immediate crisis, and buys Labour time to let what it believes are good policies and reforms to have some effect. Then hopefully have some room down the line for generosity towards the end of the parliament.
Whether it works or not is another matter.It didn't work out in the end for Osborne, as the growth never really arrived. He later had his 'omnishambles'. But then did win an election, only to be given the finger by the public a year later. Reeves and Labour better hope for a better fate.
But a perfectly sensible approach to what Labour are trying to do - namely keep the public finances relatively sane despite fantastical previous figures, while channelling some money towards a crumbling public realm and boosting investment.
What was wrong with Truss was sequencing and scale. Her's was rather like the Tory version of the Labour one John McDonnell would've given if Corbyn was still leader.
There is one narrative of the last decade of British politics that credits Corbyn with sending the Tory party mad - and ultimately ending austerity, without him ever gaining power.
I’m not sure I buy it, but undoubtedly events would have turned out very differently had he not entered, then won the 2015 labour leadership contest.
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
“Surrender” would be Zelensky giving himself up, and the Russian flag being installed over kyev. You’re a sensible chat. You can’t really believe that a Republican white house (even run by trump) would force that.
The question really is what terms would be forced for a ceasefire. I imagine it most likely would be frozen lines. And that’s a far worse outcome for Ukraine than we all hoped possible in autumn 2022 to spring 2023. But it might turn out to be a superior outcome than is possible by winter 2025. I don’t know the answer to that hypothetical. None of us do. But the idea of Ukraine forcing their way to the Sea of Azov and into crimea seems fairly fanciful at this point.
Yes it does, but a ceasefire along current lines would probably mean in effect surrendering them forever, or generations. The same way being unable to thriw back the 2014 invasion has meant probably surrendering those areas in practice though not law
Ukraine might come to feel it has no choice but that, but the West should not force or hasten it and pretend acceptance of current status quo is not a surrender of massive areas simply because Kyiv has not fallen
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
Oooh see my post earlier. I thought that might be the case. Her wording was very misleading and I wondered whether that meant a rise on road tax for ICE cars. Very slippery presentation.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The 9 out of 10 figure is from the government estimates for this year*.
However, all the independent bean counters have said the massive NI rise will be passed on both to consumers and employees, 70% of the cost passed by doing fiscal drag of not increasing your pay, with result overall no real term increases in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future.
The summary from them, its lower growth, higher interest rates, higher inflation, high mortgage payments, stagnating real terms wages.
* which IFS head has just called them out on being totally misleading.
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.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
... while Russia also regroups and prepares to finish the job.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
Or the Government ran scared and they served their purpose.
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.
Labour version of Osborne's first is the comparison I suppose - getting the ugly budget out of the way while trying not to scare the horses too much. That rise in the cost of borrowing is more of a tick up in context.
Reeves will hope that the tax rises aren't felt too badly if the economy does OK, the cash for public services staves off immediate crisis, and buys Labour time to let what it believes are good policies and reforms to have some effect. Then hopefully have some room down the line for generosity towards the end of the parliament.
Whether it works or not is another matter.It didn't work out in the end for Osborne, as the growth never really arrived. He later had his 'omnishambles'. But then did win an election, only to be given the finger by the public a year later. Reeves and Labour better hope for a better fate.
But a perfectly sensible approach to what Labour are trying to do - namely keep the public finances relatively sane despite fantastical previous figures, while channelling some money towards a crumbling public realm and boosting investment.
What was wrong with Truss was sequencing and scale. Her's was rather like the Tory version of the Labour one John McDonnell would've given if Corbyn was still leader.
Much of what was wrong with Truss was her being Truss. I think it unlikely that anyone could have sold the fantasy 'it's going to be great' message, but the world's leading political embarrassment wasn't the woman for the job.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
The alternative is shitter public services and further decline
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
It’s not just the ones who are affected, it’s also the ones who think they MIGHT be. Not just farmers and those linked to them either. Once you show you are willing to broaden the scope of IHT you scare a lot of horses.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
The alternative is shitter public services and further decline
The only real solution is growth and better productivity....the bean counters say todays budget has reduced growth and not really tackled the productivity issue.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
The right whether in print or politics have simply gone awol.
I used to think of myself as a little bit to the right of the Tory party (mostly economically), but now they're way off, and there simply is no party even close to my views.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
The alternative is shitter public services and further decline
The only real solution is growth and better productivity....the bean counters say todays budget has reduced growth and not really tackled the productivity issue.
Better healthcare, better education, better policing, better justice, and better transport will help fix those in the long term - the long term being something tories seem unable to fathom
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
Agreed. Very Labour policy.
Labour should ask themselves why Clarkson's Farm is so popular on Amazon or indeed Countryfile on the BBC - Its not that viewers are farm obsessives but the buying into the mood culture of a rural romantic England of self reliance - An attack on farmers is a vote loser
Self-employment is now relatively more attractive, depending on how employer NICs get pushed through.
But going after umbrella companies will make it harder to be self employed and substitute for workers without a lot of admin (which is obviously the point).
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
The alternative is shitter public services and further decline
The only real solution is growth and better productivity....the bean counters say todays budget has reduced growth and not really tackled the productivity issue.
Better healthcare, better education, better policing, better justice, and better transport will help fix those in the long term - the long term being something tories seem unable to fathom
Not alone they won't. Also, so far, no real policy on how to reform these intuitions to make them operate better. And they shit canned a load of transport infrastructure projects. Its a very strange mixed bag.
Another big concern is they front loaded all this money, rather than spread it out. That is often a recipe for disaster as you get the must spend it mentality. It takes time to plan things properly.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
The alternative is shitter public services and further decline
The only real solution is growth and better productivity....the bean counters say todays budget has reduced growth and not really tackled the productivity issue.
Better healthcare, better education, better policing, better justice, and better transport will help fix those in the long term - the long term being something tories seem unable to fathom
Not alone they won't. Also, so far, no real policy on how to reform these intuitions to make them operate better. And they shit canned a load of transport infrastructure projects. Its a very strange mixed bag.
Realistically we won’t know the impact of any of this until well into the next Parliament but quite frankly I am glad the government is investing again
This sort of poll, positive for Harris, should make me feel better about potential outcomes, but it's the mix of big leads and nailbiters that gets me - whilst obviously places can respond differently I have trouble believing things would be so clear cut in Michigan and Wisconsin, yet not in Pennsylvania, which just kicks in my pessimism.
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
Nonsense. Peace is not better than war if it comes on your enemy’s term. When that happens, it’s called “defeat” and it’s far better to go on fighting.
@FrancisUrquhart have just seen your edit. I think that’s fair as I have experienced first hand rushed infrastructure projects from a legal perspective. I guess we’ll see.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
The alternative is shitter public services and further decline
The only real solution is growth and better productivity....the bean counters say todays budget has reduced growth and not really tackled the productivity issue.
Better healthcare, better education, better policing, better justice, and better transport will help fix those in the long term - the long term being something tories seem unable to fathom
Not alone they won't. Also, so far, no real policy on how to reform these intuitions to make them operate better. And they shit canned a load of transport infrastructure projects. Its a very strange mixed bag.
Realistically we won’t know the impact of any of this until well into the next Parliament but quite frankly I am glad the government is investing again
I would like to see more detail.
The pissing money up the wall on carbon capture and green hydrogen as the highlighted examples of what the government wanted to spend all this borrowed money on, while shit canning road building and supercomputers, is somewhat concerning.
I’ve never been a fan of Reeves but genuinely impressed by her delivery earlier.
And can’t argue with the content. A genuinely redistributive budget which will benefit people who need services. Ending the non dom status a big winner for me.
And in other news Ah-nold is just the latest high profile Republican to endorse Harris. So many as to be pretty significant imho.
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
Agreed. Very Labour policy.
Labour should ask themselves why Clarkson's Farm is so popular on Amazon or indeed Countryfile on the BBC - Its not that viewers are farm obsessives but the buying into the mood culture of a rural romantic England of self reliance - An attack on farmers is a vote loser
Yes, I agree. The attack on the idyll, the ambulance chasing, peering through the windows at your mums crockery, valuing it. Everything about IHT is grim. Puritanical, joyless, concreted over, incessantly nannied and heavily taxed. Starmer's Britain
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.
high turnout actually benefitted trump in 2020.
Not sure you could say that. His vote certainly went up despite losing but clearly Biden's vote went up more compared with Clinton. But, as I acknowledged, there are sections who vote for Trump who have the capacity to increase their turnout too.
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
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.
Is that the long-term empties number, which is the important one?
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
Agreed. Very Labour policy.
Labour should ask themselves why Clarkson's Farm is so popular on Amazon or indeed Countryfile on the BBC - Its not that viewers are farm obsessives but the buying into the mood culture of a rural romantic England of self reliance - An attack on farmers is a vote loser
Yes, I agree. The attack on the idyll, the ambulance chasing, peering through the windows at your mums crockery, valuing it. Everything about IHT is grim. Puritanical, joyless, concreted over, incessantly nannied and heavily taxed. Starmer's Britain
Bet you’re happy to analyse the cost of each item of an unemployed person’s trip to Tesco though
I’ve never been a fan of Reeves but genuinely impressed by her delivery earlier.
And can’t argue with the content. A genuinely redistributive budget which will benefit people who need services. Ending the non dom status a big winner for me.
And in other news Ah-nold is just the latest high profile Republican to endorse Harris. So many as to be pretty significant imho.
Im curious why non-dom status is so important to you. Surely they are a net positive to the exchequer?
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
... while Russia also regroups and prepares to finish the job.
The lesson from this war is that defence is easier than attack, when well prepared that is. It will take years for Russia to rebuild its armoured capability. In which time Ukraine will fully integrate f16 capability, build up its infantry and artillery reserves and turn its borders into a fortress (severely lacking in 2022).
If I felt that the Americans were prepared to do what’s necessary to over turn Russia’s grinding advantage, things would be different. But you should take heed of Zelensky’s comments today, and Bob Woodward’s reporting. The prevalent view of those that matter does not believe in total victory for Ukraine. With each bloody month that passes, more Ukrainian blood is spilled, territory ceded and infrastructure destroyed. See the world as it is, not as you’d like it to be.
I’ve never been a fan of Reeves but genuinely impressed by her delivery earlier.
And can’t argue with the content. A genuinely redistributive budget which will benefit people who need services. Ending the non dom status a big winner for me.
And in other news Ah-nold is just the latest high profile Republican to endorse Harris. So many as to be pretty significant imho.
It didn’t sound to me like she’s ended the NonDom status. It sounded to me like she’s renamed it and plans to tweak some detail.
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
Nonsense. Peace is not better than war if it comes on your enemy’s term. When that happens, it’s called “defeat” and it’s far better to go on fighting.
Yes, it might be better than going on to lose even more (which is why supporters want to prevent that situation looking likely), that's why nations reach settlements, but if you are worse off than the situation ante bellum it's still a loss. The idea a non-fighting situation is inherently better than a fighting one, because war is bad, is the Corbynite position to these things, which ultimately makes even self defence 'bad' because it is not accepting a peace. I doubt that was the intended argument, but peace is not automatically better.
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.
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.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Just think, Rishi could have been gearing up for our own election right now if he'd wanted. Anyone think they would have done worse than they ended up managing in July? I'm still unsure.
This sort of poll, positive for Harris, should make me feel better about potential outcomes, but it's the mix of big leads and nailbiters that gets me - whilst obviously places can respond differently I have trouble believing things would be so clear cut in Michigan and Wisconsin, yet not in Pennsylvania, which just kicks in my pessimism.
NEW CNN/SSRS poll of likely voters
Michigan Harris 48% Trump 43%
Wisconsin Harris 51% Trump 45%
Pennsylvania Harris 48% Trump 48%
at this point all state level polls are within the MoE. all we can do is accept we don't know which way it's going.
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.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
Agreed. Very Labour policy.
Labour should ask themselves why Clarkson's Farm is so popular on Amazon or indeed Countryfile on the BBC - Its not that viewers are farm obsessives but the buying into the mood culture of a rural romantic England of self reliance - An attack on farmers is a vote loser
Yes, I agree. The attack on the idyll, the ambulance chasing, peering through the windows at your mums crockery, valuing it. Everything about IHT is grim. Puritanical, joyless, concreted over, incessantly nannied and heavily taxed. Starmer's Britain
Bet you’re happy to analyse the cost of each item of an unemployed person’s trip to Tesco though
As somebody who lives on benefits I can safely say I am not
Comments
Let's take OGH. A few years ago, he wanted to sell his five bedroom house in Bedford, and buy a nice apartment overlooking the river.
And he didn't bother because it was going to result in close about £75,000 of transaction fees. The result is that a family who would benefit from a large house is in a smaller one because the system discouraged OGH from trading down.
I've posted the data before, but since the introduction of higher levels of stamp duty, the number of empty bedrooms in the UK has gone through the roof, because government policy is to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
BBC 6.00 News
Similarly the contrast between natural Rishi and performative Rishi post spin doctoring today was immense. I find one version interesting, intelligent and affable, the other angry, deceitful and annoying.
Politicians should pay far less attention to their SPADs and spin doctors.
Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1056041/average-number-bedrooms-new-british-houses-1930-2020/#:~:text=From the 1930s until the,to 2.95 rooms per house.
Most people who could downsize are probably in my postion rather than ogh's rattling round in a 5 bedroom house
In fact I'm quite attracted to the opposite approach - that spending is spending and all that matters is whether you can afford it and it's for good causes.
Arguments then about what are "good causes" of course.
2024 US presidential election predictions
Kamala Harris to win 80,000,000 or more votes
10-11 bet365
K Harris to win 270-299 Electoral College votes
7-2 Betfair, BoyleSports, Paddy Power
D Trump to win 270-299 Electoral College votes
5-2 Hills
https://www.racingpost.com/sport/special-events/politics/us-election-2024-odds-best-bets-and-predictions-aSJch6p0Dj1X/
Though as you say the increasing cost of NI on employers pay may lead to workers on average salaries also seeing their pay cut or redundancies
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
Maybe some of Miliband's original growth plans will be allowed to male more of an appearance in a year or two, but who knows if that was right round.
The NHS is a public priority, but so is growth, which I think most of that 20+ billion in this budget was originally drawn up around.
We should be doing those things, because that's how businesses and countries get better. It's a process of continued iteration.
And lowering stamp duty - or maybe even abolishing it for people who are trading down - would clearly be a positive. It's not going to solve the housing crisis, obviously. But if it means that one-in-ten people now aren't living in homes that are too big for them, then that is a net positive.
It's also EASY. It's a simple change of the rules, that would make a difference.
"£60.1 billion is due to the direct effect of policy changes in this Budget, the largest sustained increase in spending in at least the past 15 years."
OBR report.
Additionally we have lots more stuff than when we last lived in a 2 bed terrace, and have got rather used to spreading out. finally there is little to down size to in our immdiate area, meaning disrupting all our social contacts if we move further afield.
There are different ways to address these various problems, but encouraging downsizing is a very straightforward way to improve the housing situation with neither the financial cost nor NIMBY/environmental impact of building.
Reeves will hope that the tax rises aren't felt too badly if the economy does OK, the cash for public services staves off immediate crisis, and buys Labour time to let what it believes are good policies and reforms to have some effect. Then hopefully have some room down the line for generosity towards the end of the parliament.
Whether it works or not is another matter.It didn't work out in the end for Osborne, as the growth never really arrived. He later had his 'omnishambles'. But then did win an election, only to be given the finger by the public a year later. Reeves and Labour better hope for a better fate.
But a perfectly sensible approach to what Labour are trying to do - namely keep the public finances relatively sane despite fantastical previous figures, while channelling some money towards a crumbling public realm and boosting investment.
What was wrong with Truss was sequencing and scale. Her's was rather like the Tory version of the Labour one John McDonnell would've given if Corbyn was still leader.
The question really is what terms would be forced for a ceasefire. I imagine it most likely would be frozen lines. And that’s a far worse outcome for Ukraine than we all hoped possible in autumn 2022 to spring 2023. But it might turn out to be a superior outcome than is possible by winter 2025. I don’t know the answer to that hypothetical. None of us do. But the idea of Ukraine forcing their way to the Sea of Azov and into crimea seems fairly fanciful at this point.
Which usually has the appearance to those such as me as either acceptance of managed decline or hopes and dreams leading to growth, somehow. Think tanks are no use, they just push an ideology they already believe in so any analysis they present is worth very little.
All of which means I am left to simply trust in our political leaders and senior civil servants.
It isn't a cheery place to be in.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/30/petrol-drivers-hit-100-jump-road-tax-electric-cars-spared/
people want to live on greenfield sites, and generally build costs are substantially cheaper. Additionally there is a particular need for new housing in agricultural counties like the West Country.
Getting more land on the market is another piece of the jigsaw.
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
I’m not sure I buy it, but undoubtedly events would have turned out very differently had he not entered, then won the 2015 labour leadership contest.
Ukraine might come to feel it has no choice but that, but the West should not force or hasten it and pretend acceptance of current status quo is not a surrender of massive areas simply because Kyiv has not fallen
https://x.com/pjtheeconomist/status/1851633994430918962?s=61
However, all the independent bean counters have said the massive NI rise will be passed on both to consumers and employees, 70% of the cost passed by doing fiscal drag of not increasing your pay, with result overall no real term increases in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future.
The summary from them, its lower growth, higher interest rates, higher inflation, high mortgage payments, stagnating real terms wages.
* which IFS head has just called them out on being totally misleading.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
I used to think of myself as a little bit to the right of the Tory party (mostly economically), but now they're way off, and there simply is no party even close to my views.
Another big concern is they front loaded all this money, rather than spread it out. That is often a recipe for disaster as you get the must spend it mentality. It takes time to plan things properly.
NEW CNN/SSRS poll of likely voters
Michigan
Harris 48%
Trump 43%
Wisconsin
Harris 51%
Trump 45%
Pennsylvania
Harris 48%
Trump 48%
The pissing money up the wall on carbon capture and green hydrogen as the highlighted examples of what the government wanted to spend all this borrowed money on, while shit canning road building and supercomputers, is somewhat concerning.
And can’t argue with the content. A genuinely redistributive budget which will benefit people who need services. Ending the non dom status a big winner for me.
And in other news Ah-nold is just the latest high profile Republican to endorse Harris. So many as to be pretty significant imho.
Puritanical, joyless, concreted over, incessantly nannied and heavily taxed. Starmer's Britain
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
If I felt that the Americans were prepared to do what’s necessary to over turn Russia’s grinding advantage, things would be different. But you should take heed of Zelensky’s comments today, and Bob Woodward’s reporting. The prevalent view of those that matter does not believe in total victory for Ukraine. With each bloody month that passes, more Ukrainian blood is spilled, territory ceded and infrastructure destroyed. See the world as it is, not as you’d like it to be.