Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
The obvious explanation is that the market expects base rates to increase in the UK more rapidly than they will in France. This will be because the UK is exepcted to outperform the EZ over the next year or so allowing, indeed requiring, the gradual return to more normal levels of interest rates to control inflation.
Because they think that base rates will increase they need a higher rate of return on their gilts to avoid a capital loss. Think of it as a vote of confidence in the UK recovery.
The EZ in contrast, still has a much poorer outlook despite this morning's figures so their rates will likely remain unchanged for longer. Hopefully their figures will also pick up soon at which point their gilt rates will pick up as well.
Yes, I too see this as a "good" thing (though doubtless GO at NO 11 might disagree). Essentially, at some point it would be beneficial to return to something approaching an historical norm of gilt yields (say 4%+ish for a 15 yr gilt rather than levels not seen since Gibraltar was Spanish - no really.). Such a return a) indicates "normality" returning so good in general confidence terms b) reduces notional liabilities on pension deficits right now thereby encouraging less company defensive saving (all those corporate cash piles) and more investment. Works on a personal level too: if an individual wants a target retirement income of X, and X at 3% yield requires £500K, X at 4% yield requires "only" £375K meaning you can save 125K less and spend it down the pub (or whatever) thereby generating income for that nice chap that pours you a pint, and sells you a bag of crisps and so on. It's called demand and it's what we lack.
Now the trick is of course not to crash the housing market with rate rises and reduce the demand that way by taking from borrowers, of which there are too many who have borrowed too much, prime of which is the State (which is why HMG is priming the pump by underwriting mortgages much to my concern). Slowly, slowly is what we need, but rate/gilt yield rises in the long run to sensible levels are good.
An odd feature of the will is that the solicitor went back for clarification. One assumes therefore he wasn't the same person who drew up the will. Either way I doubt that particular firm will be dealing with many estates from now on
Presumably there is a written record of the exchanges that took place between the solicitors and the lady back in 2001. Given it happened 12 years ago it's quite possible the relevant lawyers are no longer with the firm and/or have misremembered. But whatever else it is extraordinary that the will was not drafted more carefully so that there was absolutely no room for doubt.
Not extraordinary, there are lots of crap lawyers out there.
Let's hope that none of the solicitors involved is a CON OR LD activist.
Mike thats a huge red herring, wasn't this will drafted 12 years ago. When Labour were in power ?
What has that got to do with it? He is referring to the solicitors involved during the recent disposal of the estate. Although I very much doubt it would have happened, he is raising the idea that the solicitors legal perspective may have been influenced by their tribal party loyalty.
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
Strength of British recovery... expectations of future rises in interest rates ... rational markets theory leads to rises in current yields as market participants position themselves
An odd feature of the will is that the solicitor went back for clarification. One assumes therefore he wasn't the same person who drew up the will. Either way I doubt that particular firm will be dealing with many estates from now on
Unless they had the testator sign an exclusion of responsibility for choosing to ignore their advice. Does anyone know if the solicitors are also the Executors and if so what their charge on the estate for handling the probate is likely to be? Should be about £1,500 to £2,000 for a straightforword single house, but probably a % on the estate and if 3% (typical from banks) that is £15,000! Even 2% is £10,000.
Having had a good 2012 Miliband appears to be struggling with 2013
Arguably the Coalition had a bad 2012 rather than Miliband a good one [trying to isolate the motivating factor]. Hence once they got their act together, Miliband's true abilities are revealed
Let's hope that none of the solicitors involved is a CON OR LD activist.
Mike thats a huge red herring, wasn't this will drafted 12 years ago. When Labour were in power ?
Pretty optimistic LD activist who thought in 2001 that they'd be in power during the lifetime of a 78 year old woman. Having said which, I assume Mike's point was just that it might look cynical if the solicitor who wrote a very ambiguous will and then interpreted it as giving money to the LDs or Tories was politically active for either party. Obviously only superficially for the reason you give.
Obviously, we all need to acknowledge the absurdity of any suggestion that a lawyer was of anything other than absolute integrity when discharging his or her duties.
Very noticeable from the graph is how little the Tories have benefitted from the loss of LD votes. Even in 2010, the Tories barely gained any of the lost Lib Dem votes.
The swing comes almost entirely from the reduction in LD votes.
The Labour gains are striking , particularly in 2005 when you would have thought despite the loss of the incumbent, the LD's would have retained many "Iraq" voters.
An odd feature of the will is that the solicitor went back for clarification. One assumes therefore he wasn't the same person who drew up the will. Either way I doubt that particular firm will be dealing with many estates from now on
Unless they had the testator sign an exclusion of responsibility for choosing to ignore their advice. Does anyone know if the solicitors are also the Executors and if so what their charge on the estate for handling the probate is likely to be? Should be about £1,500 to £2,000 for a straightforword single house, but probably a % on the estate and if 3% (typical from banks) that is £15,000! Even 2% is £10,000.
The Will states that the partners of the solicitor firm who drew up the will are to be appointed the executors, and they are entitled to charge all usual professional charges.
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
Strength of British recovery... expectations of future rises in interest rates ... rational markets theory leads to rises in current yields as market participants position themselves
Cost to British businesses soar as a result. Long term mortgage rates will rise too.
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
Strength of British recovery... expectations of future rises in interest rates ... rational markets theory leads to rises in current yields as market participants position themselves
Cost to British businesses soar as a result. Long term mortgage rates will rise too.
Interest rates are sub-normal at the moment.
The faster we get back to a fully-functioning economy with normal interest rates (+/- 5%) the better IMV
Very noticeable from the graph is how little the Tories have benefitted from the loss of LD votes. Even in 2010, the Tories barely gained any of the lost Lib Dem votes.
The swing comes almost entirely from the reduction in LD votes.
The Labour gains are striking , particularly in 2005 when you would have thought despite the loss of the incumbent, the LD's would have retained many "Iraq" voters.
You have to be careful with your interpretation here, because the changes presented are not the absolute changes, but the anomalies with respect to the national changes. Or the anomalies of the anomalies, if you like.
Given that in 2005 the national change included a large Labour - Lib Dem swing, then it is not surprising that without the incumbent the Lib Dems would have achieved a smaller swing - expressed as a swing in the opposite direction.
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
Strength of British recovery... expectations of future rises in interest rates ... rational markets theory leads to rises in current yields as market participants position themselves
Cost to British businesses soar as a result. Long term mortgage rates will rise too.
Not to ours it won't. Business has no debt (paid it off by not taking much out) except for pension liabilities on which we have been roundly shafted by low gilt yields, kept low in part by printing money. Rising gilt yields will save us a fortune. Quantatitive easing practically work of the Devil as far as I am concerned.
I certainly think that people underestimate just how extraordinary the current rates of interest are. The lowest rate in history unchanged now since March 2009. It is incredible how we have got used to this and ignored the incredible pain inflicted on savers as a result.
If people are to be encouraged to save interest rates need to increase to a rate that gives a real return. We have not seen that for more than 5 years. Only fear and a lack of safe alternatives have allowed governments to borrow at these rates. If better opportunities are available and the government has to pay more to borrow that is a good thing. It is probably too cheap for their own good at the moment making deficit reduction seem less screamingly urgent than it is.
My guess is that we will see small, incremental changes next year, especially if the EZ starts to help out and growth continues at anything like its current rate. So the gilt rates make perfect sense to me.
Rail fares, threatening illegal gas bill caps and wagging fingers at wonga - hardly a revolution ?
NO, but labour has a point here. Rail fares are absolutely extortionate and utility prices are soaring.
The government will have to do something
19 Feb 2009 – “Britain's rail fares are by far the highest in Europe with some commuters paying more than four times the amount for comparable journeys . ..”
www.telegraph.co.uk › Finance › News by Sector › Transport
4 November 2009 - “Britain's first £1,000 train ticket sparks row over soaring rail fares”
Really can’t see this as the knock-out punch in Ed’s attack line can you?- what exactly did Labour do about the high cost of rail fares during their 13 years in power, apart from leaving them exorbitantly much higher than when they took office? - The same goes for 'utilities',,,!
It's noteworthy that WillGate stopped in its tracks after Mrs Edward's executors made a statement.
The only person I saw continuing to tweet about it was the Mail journalist who generated it. He tried to make it SomeoneElsesFault and then shut up.
And then it was overtaken by Eg Miliband. Has anyone seen coverage of his actual speech? I haven't nor twitters about. Sunk without trace appears to sum it up.
Since there is always a "government in office", the "whichever" in the will must imply whichever party is in office.
Rod is right on that - I was about to make the same point. That 'whichever' does throw in an element of support for the political party interpretation.
It's certainly a spectacularly bad bit of drafting, though. If, as Davis Wood say, "It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death", then why in the name of heaven didn't they use that wording?
Let's hope that none of the solicitors involved is a CON OR LD activist.
Mike thats a huge red herring, wasn't this will drafted 12 years ago. When Labour were in power ?
Of course this is a great way of getting 15 minutes of fame, even if it is after death. I wonder what the family (if there are any) are thinking right now?
I might just re-draft my will to irritate the children.
Rail fares, threatening illegal gas bill caps and wagging fingers at wonga - hardly a revolution ?
NO, but labour has a point here. Rail fares are absolutely extortionate and utility prices are soaring.
The government will have to do something
19 Feb 2009 – “Britain's rail fares are by far the highest in Europe with some commuters paying more than four times the amount for comparable journeys . ..”
www.telegraph.co.uk › Finance › News by Sector › Transport
4 November 2009 - “Britain's first £1,000 train ticket sparks row over soaring rail fares”
Really can’t see this as the knock-out punch in Ed’s attack line can you?- what exactly did Labour do about the high cost of rail fares during their 13 years in power, apart from leaving them exorbitantly much higher than when they took office? - The same goes for 'utilities',,,!
Above inflation increases in rail fares is one of those things - such as university tuition fees, or PFI - that there is a cross-party consensus on. The consensus is to deplore how awful it is when in Opposition, but carry on the same policy when in Government.
Since there is always a "government in office", the "whichever" in the will must imply whichever party is in office.
Rod is right on that - I was about to make the same point. That 'whichever' does throw in an element of support for the political party interpretation.
It's certainly a spectacularly bad bit of drafting, though. If, as Davis Wood say, "It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death", then why in the name of heaven didn't they use that wording?
So, basically she wasn't bothered whichever "party" got the money ? She could not have known at that time which party would be in power. That shows she had no particular allegiance.
I personally think she meant whichever "government" in power, i.e. help the country. It was just badly drafted.
So what's the point of Carney and Osborne promising no interest rate rises if that very promise sends the bond yields up and makes interest rate rises more likely?
You are confusing cause and effect. Higher gilt yields are not the cause of higher interest rates but a reflection on their liklihood. The market has to take a view over differing periods for gilts of where the base rate is likely to be.
At the moment there is a perceived risk, built on more rapid growth and housing policy that there may be a need to increase rates within a 12-18 month time frame. This affects gilts but gilts do not directly affect interest rates. Whether those increases come to pass will depend on the future path of the UK economy.
If you are like hunchman, who was putting forward his crash idea yet again last night, you might think that the idea of interest rate increases is absurd. Thankfully the UK economy is in safer hands than that.
So what's the point of Carney and Osborne promising no interest rate rises if that very promise sends the bond yields up and makes interest rate rises more likely?
Carney was talking about BoE base rates. But the risae in yields is related to the strong performance of the UK economy, not the Carney comments specifically.
Market yields are what has risen - this will likely impact funding rates for banks and the terms that they will lend on, but it's an imprecise relationship.
Rail fares, threatening illegal gas bill caps and wagging fingers at wonga - hardly a revolution ?
NO, but labour has a point here. Rail fares are absolutely extortionate and utility prices are soaring.
The government will have to do something
19 Feb 2009 – “Britain's rail fares are by far the highest in Europe with some commuters paying more than four times the amount for comparable journeys . ..”
www.telegraph.co.uk › Finance › News by Sector › Transport
4 November 2009 - “Britain's first £1,000 train ticket sparks row over soaring rail fares”
Really can’t see this as the knock-out punch in Ed’s attack line can you?- what exactly did Labour do about the high cost of rail fares during their 13 years in power, apart from leaving them exorbitantly much higher than when they took office? - The same goes for 'utilities',,,!
Above inflation increases in rail fares is one of those things - such as university tuition fees, or PFI - that there is a cross-party consensus on. The consensus is to deplore how awful it is when in Opposition, but carry on the same policy when in Government.
I've given up and mostly drive now.
Ditto - Apart from when traveling up to London, where parking charges and 'congestion charges' would leave the family subsisting on baked beans for the rest of the week.
I personally think she meant whichever "government" in power, i.e. help the country. It was just badly drafted.
Certainly badly drafted, but the solicitors state it was intended for the political party forming the government. I always thought the idea was that you pay solicitors to avoid this sort of mess, but I must say my experience is that you always need to double-check everything yourself.
Rail fares, threatening illegal gas bill caps and wagging fingers at wonga - hardly a revolution ?
NO, but labour has a point here. Rail fares are absolutely extortionate and utility prices are soaring.
The government will have to do something
19 Feb 2009 – “Britain's rail fares are by far the highest in Europe with some commuters paying more than four times the amount for comparable journeys . ..”
www.telegraph.co.uk › Finance › News by Sector › Transport
4 November 2009 - “Britain's first £1,000 train ticket sparks row over soaring rail fares”
Really can’t see this as the knock-out punch in Ed’s attack line can you?- what exactly did Labour do about the high cost of rail fares during their 13 years in power, apart from leaving them exorbitantly much higher than when they took office? - The same goes for 'utilities',,,!
Above inflation increases in rail fares is one of those things - such as university tuition fees, or PFI - that there is a cross-party consensus on. The consensus is to deplore how awful it is when in Opposition, but carry on the same policy when in Government.
I've given up and mostly drive now.
Ditto. It is cheaper for me to drive a medium sized car 100 miles a day with a single passenger than it is to buy rail tickets. How absurd is that?
Since there is always a "government in office", the "whichever" in the will must imply whichever party is in office.
Rod is right on that - I was about to make the same point. That 'whichever' does throw in an element of support for the political party interpretation.
It's certainly a spectacularly bad bit of drafting, though. If, as Davis Wood say, "It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death", then why in the name of heaven didn't they use that wording?
So, basically she wasn't bothered whichever "party" got the money ? She could not have known at that time which party would be in power. That shows she had no particular allegiance.
I personally think she meant whichever "government" in power, i.e. help the country. It was just badly drafted.
So you are saying that the statement put out by her lawyers is false?
Since there is always a "government in office", the "whichever" in the will must imply whichever party is in office.
Rod is right on that - I was about to make the same point. That 'whichever' does throw in an element of support for the political party interpretation.
It's certainly a spectacularly bad bit of drafting, though. If, as Davis Wood say, "It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death", then why in the name of heaven didn't they use that wording?
So, basically she wasn't bothered whichever "party" got the money ? She could not have known at that time which party would be in power. That shows she had no particular allegiance.
I personally think she meant whichever "government" in power, i.e. help the country. It was just badly drafted.
I quite like the idea I had downthread that she had sympathy with the constant pillorying received by government ministers and intended to make a bequest to the government ministers of the day...
I quote like the idea I had downthread that she had sympathy with the constant pillorying received by government ministers and intended to make a bequest to the government ministers of the day...
Or maybe she thought that the 'short money' was an abomination on the face of the earth and this was her way of correcting for it.
Rail fares, threatening illegal gas bill caps and wagging fingers at wonga - hardly a revolution ?
NO, but labour has a point here. Rail fares are absolutely extortionate and utility prices are soaring.
The government will have to do something
19 Feb 2009 – “Britain's rail fares are by far the highest in Europe with some commuters paying more than four times the amount for comparable journeys . ..”
www.telegraph.co.uk › Finance › News by Sector › Transport
4 November 2009 - “Britain's first £1,000 train ticket sparks row over soaring rail fares”
Really can’t see this as the knock-out punch in Ed’s attack line can you?- what exactly did Labour do about the high cost of rail fares during their 13 years in power, apart from leaving them exorbitantly much higher than when they took office? - The same goes for 'utilities',,,!
I personally think she meant whichever "government" in power, i.e. help the country. It was just badly drafted.
Certainly badly drafted, but the solicitors state it was intended for the political party forming the government. I always thought the idea was that you pay solicitors to avoid this sort of mess, but I must say my experience is that you always need to double-check everything yourself.
Ditto. The number of times I have had to rewrite solictors' drafts of something or other is extraordinary. Though not as extraordinary as the fact that they then bill for the time they spent putting together the rubbish that had to be changed.
Let's see what the Mail does with the story tomorrow.
If the intent was to give it to political parties then the bequest was drafted very badly.
Let's hope that none of the solicitors involved is a CON OR LD activist.
I think this could've been a resonating story but the violence in Egypt is likely to knock it off the news headlines. Looks nasty out there.
In a cynical frame of mind, is there any way to validate that the money actually gets given to the Treasury?
Don't all the parties publish accounts?
Yes, but you wouldn't necessarily breakout every payment.
You could have an arguement as whether the payment should be reflected as negative revenues (i.e. reversing out the original transaction) or it could also be considered "other operating expenses".
The only risk (and I haven't looked at prior years) is if the parties publish a list of, say, their 10 largest donations & they don't have 10 larger than this.
Although I could imagine a conversation as follows:
- 'Did you pay the money to the Treasury'? - 'We said we would write them a cheque and we did' - But did you give them the cheque'?
[after all, according to rumour, Bernie Ecclestone never cashed the £1m cheque when Labour repaid his donation]
@tim - Surely not using an anecdote, one case out of 600,000, are you?
For Ed Miliband, the Independent, and others who can't understand the incredibly simple fact that moving out of a house or flat frees it up for someone else, this article explains it:
I quote like the idea I had downthread that she had sympathy with the constant pillorying received by government ministers and intended to make a bequest to the government ministers of the day...
Or maybe she thought that the 'short money' was an abomination on the face of the earth and this was her way of correcting for it.
Yes, that is another good alternative explanation.
Ditto. The number of times I have had to rewrite solictors' drafts of something or other is extraordinary. Though not as extraordinary as the fact that they then bill for the time they spent putting together the rubbish that had to be changed.
I now write most documents myself, send them to the solicitors, and then find I get a bill for two grand for the pleasure of seeing them cut and paste it onto their letterhead.
Having said that, the best lawyers are absolutely superb. But you can't tell in advance how good they are, and it all comes down to individuals. Paying megabucks for a top firm doesn't necessarily buy you the best. (I had a great example a few years ago when one of the top four firms completely failed to notice my company had a subsidiary company, which meant all the clauses they had painstakingly and expensively insisted on weren't worth a bean as they didn't bind the subsidiary. Luckily they were working for the other side.)
All kinds of strange bequests get made. One of my classmates at school was left £4 million (in the 1980s) on condition that he changed his surname to an otherwise-extinct family name.
All kinds of strange bequests get made. One of my classmates at school was left £4 million (in the 1980s) on condition that he changed his surname to an otherwise-extinct family name.
That made the Daily Mail too.
Surely you just change it back again afterwards, or were the solicitors cunning enough to account for that eventuality? Based on evidence today, I would think not
Ditto. It is cheaper for me to drive a medium sized car 100 miles a day with a single passenger than it is to buy rail tickets. How absurd is that?
Yes, though the root problem is that the cost of cars is frontloaded into tax in buying it and annual road fund licence (and insurance). When you've paid all that it's relatively cheap to drive the thing. The alternative that environmentalists like, blocked by protests from rural drivers and others who need to drive long distances for work, would be to abolish tax on purchase etc. and increase fuel tax, so as to make cars cheaper to own and more expensive to run.
Another alternative is to live in London, where only madmen drive or indeed have a car at all, as public transport is nearly always faster, cheaper and less frustrating. But I appreciate there are some practical difficulties in moving the entire population to London.
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
"way above France" - bless. Like the usual BBC line that the stockmarket "plummeted" 0.3%..?
10-yr rates have been above France for weeks now. But, critically, and especially with regard to your "Tories spending more than Labour" meme, they are relatively low and come as a direct consequence of the market believing The Osbo when he arrived that the deficit would be addressed.
Since there is always a "government in office", the "whichever" in the will must imply whichever party is in office.
Rod is right on that - I was about to make the same point. That 'whichever' does throw in an element of support for the political party interpretation.
It's certainly a spectacularly bad bit of drafting, though. If, as Davis Wood say, "It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death", then why in the name of heaven didn't they use that wording?
So, basically she wasn't bothered whichever "party" got the money ? She could not have known at that time which party would be in power. That shows she had no particular allegiance.
I personally think she meant whichever "government" in power, i.e. help the country. It was just badly drafted.
So you are saying that the statement put out by her lawyers is false?
Have you never heard of incompetent lawyers ? If that was indeed her wish, why didn't the will explicitly say that.
What is the rationale of the Liberal Democrats 20% share ? Are they so weak that they could not demand 50%. They should understand that on every government decision , they hold a veto.
What would the Tories have done if they had asked for 50% ? Go to the press ?
What is the rationale of the Liberal Democrats 20% share ? Are they so weak that they could not demand 50%. They should understand that on every government decision , they hold a veto.
All kinds of strange bequests get made. One of my classmates at school was left £4 million (in the 1980s) on condition that he changed his surname to an otherwise-extinct family name.
That made the Daily Mail too.
That used to be very common - particularly in Scotland.
I have Grey, Hamilton and Nairne cousins (although we always insisted on a hyphenation...)
Not sure an FOI request would reveal information on a specific payment (privacy) and are the parties open to them?
The Treasury is (I would have assumed), but I suspect you are right that parties are not -- which may suggest why nothing more was heard of that £1m cheque not being cashed.
@tim - Surely not using an anecdote, one case out of 600,000, are you?
For Ed Miliband, the Independent, and others who can't understand the incredibly simple fact that moving out of a house or flat frees it up for someone else, this article explains it:
And how does freeing up a house on which lots of money has been spent adapting it for the special needs of a disabled person save any money at all . It may well be that the council would then have to spend more money removing the adaptions from that house and more money on adapting the new flat/house into which the disabled person has moved .
David Skelton @DJSkelton 10m When Harold Wilson was hit by an egg in '70, he responded,"if the Tories get in, in five years no-one will be able to afford to buy an egg."
Since there is always a "government in office", the "whichever" in the will must imply whichever party is in office.
Rod is right on that - I was about to make the same point. That 'whichever' does throw in an element of support for the political party interpretation.
It's certainly a spectacularly bad bit of drafting, though. If, as Davis Wood say, "It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death", then why in the name of heaven didn't they use that wording?
So, basically she wasn't bothered whichever "party" got the money ? She could not have known at that time which party would be in power. That shows she had no particular allegiance.
I personally think she meant whichever "government" in power, i.e. help the country. It was just badly drafted.
So you are saying that the statement put out by her lawyers is false?
Have you never heard of incompetent lawyers ? If that was indeed her wish, why didn't the will explicitly say that.
What is the rationale of the Liberal Democrats 20% share ? Are they so weak that they could not demand 50%. They should understand that on every government decision , they hold a veto.
What would the Tories have done if they had asked for 50% ? Go to the press ?
Because a good working relationship is worth more than the extra £150K
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
"way above France" - bless. Like the usual BBC line that the stockmarket "plummeted" 0.3%..?
10-yr rates have been above France for weeks now. But, critically, and especially with regard to your "Tories spending more than Labour" meme, they are relatively low and come as a direct consequence of the market believing The Osbo when he arrived that the deficit would be addressed.
We know that UK 10 year rates are higher than France and remember when pbtories used to boast how they were lower than than France because of their socialist president .
Since there is always a "government in office", the "whichever" in the will must imply whichever party is in office.
Rod is right on that - I was about to make the same point. That 'whichever' does throw in an element of support for the political party interpretation.
It's certainly a spectacularly bad bit of drafting, though. If, as Davis Wood say, "It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death", then why in the name of heaven didn't they use that wording?
Surely it is open for the deceased's executors to obtain a judicial ruling on their interpretation of the will.
This would be the best way of clearing the mess up.
And how does freeing up a house on which lots of money has been spent adapting it for the special needs of a disabled person save any money at all . It may well be that the council would then have to spend more money removing the adaptions from that house and more money on adapting the new flat/house into which the disabled person has moved .
Yes, there will be a tiny number of cases where that is true. As tim rightly says, we should of course not let anecdotes about such exceptional cases determine the overall policy, which is about subsidies for a staggering one million spare rooms, at a time when there are many thousands of families in very overcrowded accomodation.
Of course, for the small number of exceptional cases, exceptions should be made. That's why the government has established a fund for exactly that purpose.
Ditto. It is cheaper for me to drive a medium sized car 100 miles a day with a single passenger than it is to buy rail tickets. How absurd is that?
Yes, though the root problem is that the cost of cars is frontloaded into tax in buying it and annual road fund licence (and insurance). When you've paid all that it's relatively cheap to drive the thing. The alternative that environmentalists like, blocked by protests from rural drivers and others who need to drive long distances for work, would be to abolish tax on purchase etc. and increase fuel tax, so as to make cars cheaper to own and more expensive to run.
Another alternative is to live in London, where only madmen drive or indeed have a car at all, as public transport is nearly always faster, cheaper and less frustrating. But I appreciate there are some practical difficulties in moving the entire population to London.
What would the people of Broxtowe say?
I always think I have been in London too long when I start to get annoyed if I have to wait more than 5 minutes for a tube.
You're getting there, tim. If the financial incentive is sufficient, people will move and free up the spare rooms for those who desperately need them. If it's not, they won't. Glad you finally agree.
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
"way above France" - bless. Like the usual BBC line that the stockmarket "plummeted" 0.3%..?
10-yr rates have been above France for weeks now. But, critically, and especially with regard to your "Tories spending more than Labour" meme, they are relatively low and come as a direct consequence of the market believing The Osbo when he arrived that the deficit would be addressed.
We know that UK 10 year rates are higher than France and remember when pbtories used to boast how they were lower than than France because of their socialist president .
But that is because the story has fundamentally changed. The question used to be where is your money safest? We were safer than France so our rates were lower. Now the question is where is likely to grow fastest and start pushing interest rates up fastest? The answer is again the UK.
Personally I think Danny Alexander deserves a lot of the blame. He has been simply excellent at a very difficult job.
Ditto. It is cheaper for me to drive a medium sized car 100 miles a day with a single passenger than it is to buy rail tickets. How absurd is that?
Yes, though the root problem is that the cost of cars is frontloaded into tax in buying it and annual road fund licence (and insurance). When you've paid all that it's relatively cheap to drive the thing. The alternative that environmentalists like, blocked by protests from rural drivers and others who need to drive long distances for work, would be to abolish tax on purchase etc. and increase fuel tax, so as to make cars cheaper to own and more expensive to run.
Another alternative is to live in London, where only madmen drive or indeed have a car at all, as public transport is nearly always faster, cheaper and less frustrating. But I appreciate there are some practical difficulties in moving the entire population to London.
What would the people of Broxtowe say?
I always think I have been in London too long when I start to get annoyed if I have to wait more than 5 minutes for a tube.
Most infrequent off-peak services (only the first serving places inside GLA border):
Hainault - Woodford = 20 min. frequency Chalfont & Latimer - Amersham = 30 min. Chalfont & Latimer - Chesham = 30 min.
why does the Govts own impact assessmenet say that 2/3 of those affected are disabled
Because 'disabled' doesn't mean what you think it does.
Actually, you don't. You know perfectly well how broad the term 'disabled' is in the official definitions: 6.9 million people of working age. Those attacking the government are being extremely dishonest by citing examples of people with spina bifida, or needing dialysis, and implying this is typical.
Meanwhile - how many disabled people are stuck in the over-crowded accomodation?
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
"way above France" - bless. Like the usual BBC line that the stockmarket "plummeted" 0.3%..?
10-yr rates have been above France for weeks now. But, critically, and especially with regard to your "Tories spending more than Labour" meme, they are relatively low and come as a direct consequence of the market believing The Osbo when he arrived that the deficit would be addressed.
We know that UK 10 year rates are higher than France and remember when pbtories used to boast how they were lower than than France because of their socialist president .
But that is because the story has fundamentally changed. The question used to be where is your money safest? We were safer than France so our rates were lower. Now the question is where is likely to grow fastest and start pushing interest rates up fastest? The answer is again the UK.
Personally I think Danny Alexander deserves a lot of the blame. He has been simply excellent at a very difficult job.
Nope nothing has fundamentally changed . It is simply pbtories like yourself trying to spin something as positive one day and the opposite as positive the next without realising how ridiculous it makes you look .
Ditto. It is cheaper for me to drive a medium sized car 100 miles a day with a single passenger than it is to buy rail tickets. How absurd is that?
Yes, though the root problem is that the cost of cars is frontloaded into tax in buying it and annual road fund licence (and insurance). When you've paid all that it's relatively cheap to drive the thing. The alternative that environmentalists like, blocked by protests from rural drivers and others who need to drive long distances for work, would be to abolish tax on purchase etc. and increase fuel tax, so as to make cars cheaper to own and more expensive to run.
Another alternative is to live in London, where only madmen drive or indeed have a car at all, as public transport is nearly always faster, cheaper and less frustrating. But I appreciate there are some practical difficulties in moving the entire population to London.
What would the people of Broxtowe say?
I always think I have been in London too long when I start to get annoyed if I have to wait more than 5 minutes for a tube.
Most infrequent off-peak services (only the first serving places inside GLA border):
Hainault - Woodford = 20 min. frequency Chalfont & Latimer - Amersham = 30 min. Chalfont & Latimer - Chesham = 30 min.
As a visitor and a tourist I rarely go further out than St John's Wood Sunil. It is a fantastic service and Londoners are extremely lucky to have it.
Great fun. Recommend. Also good if you want to escape angry atheists.
Best view over London - a right hand window seat on a plane making its final descent into Heathrow. Stunning night or day. Can't think of a better final 15 minutes into any big city anywhere. For a first time visitor it must be magical. Shame about the rip-off journey back into town after that though.
The Conservatives have also drawn up what they believe is an effective “grid” as designed by Mandelson/Campbell in the early New Labour years.
I’ve picked up that Theresa May is next out of the traps on Monday with a Home Office intervention.
The idea is to fill the space left by Labour’s lack of policy ideas: for as long as Miliband holds back on showing his hand on a full roster of policies (and there is a logic to his slow progress on this) there is space for the Tories to keep making the noise.
Great fun. Recommend. Also good if you want to escape angry atheists.
You're heading for 500 comments atm, maybe you can offer a trip to Holy Island for the best atheist comment and some signed bibles for the runners-up. Should keep things ticking over nicely.
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
"way above France" - bless. Like the usual BBC line that the stockmarket "plummeted" 0.3%..?
10-yr rates have been above France for weeks now. But, critically, and especially with regard to your "Tories spending more than Labour" meme, they are relatively low and come as a direct consequence of the market believing The Osbo when he arrived that the deficit would be addressed.
We know that UK 10 year rates are higher than France and remember when pbtories used to boast how they were lower than than France because of their socialist president .
But that is because the story has fundamentally changed. The question used to be where is your money safest? We were safer than France so our rates were lower. Now the question is where is likely to grow fastest and start pushing interest rates up fastest? The answer is again the UK.
Personally I think Danny Alexander deserves a lot of the blame. He has been simply excellent at a very difficult job.
Nope nothing has fundamentally changed . It is simply pbtories like yourself trying to spin something as positive one day and the opposite as positive the next without realising how ridiculous it makes you look .
On 20th March in the budget Osborne announced that the OBR forecast growth for 2013 of 0.6%, the same as was achieved in Q2. Even you cannot believe that nothing has changed.
Wills are real minefields, and are not to be undertaken lightly. Beneficiaries should be as candid with professional advisers as the testator.
A couple of years ago two jackasses I know were in the early stages of being pursued for debts related to a social club they had managed to destroy.
Sadly, at the same time, their wife/mother was dying of cancer and the family property was all in her name. Two days before she died she made a will leaving everything to the two jackasses. A few months later they were made bankrupt for the club debts, and so their inheritance was lost, becoming the property of the Official Receiver. If these two had discussed their predicament with the solicitors drawing up the will, they would have redrafted it in such a way that the property was protected, e.g. by writing it in a Trust...
Wills are real minefields, and are not to be undertaken lightly. Beneficiaries should be as candid with professional advisers as the testator.
A couple of years ago two jackasses I know were in the early stages of being pursued for debts related to a social club they had managed to destroy.
Sadly, at the same time, their wife/mother was dying of cancer and the family property was all in her name. Two days before she died she made a will leaving everything to the two jackasses. A few months later they were made bankrupt for the club debts, and so their inheritance was lost, becoming the property of the Official Receiver. If these two had discussed their predicament with the solicitors drawing up the will, they would have redrafted it in such a way that the property was protected, e.g. by writing it in a Trust...
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
"way above France" - bless. Like the usual BBC line that the stockmarket "plummeted" 0.3%..?
10-yr rates have been above France for weeks now. But, critically, and especially with regard to your "Tories spending more than Labour" meme, they are relatively low and come as a direct consequence of the market believing The Osbo when he arrived that the deficit would be addressed.
We know that UK 10 year rates are higher than France and remember when pbtories used to boast how they were lower than than France because of their socialist president .
But that is because the story has fundamentally changed. The question used to be where is your money safest? We were safer than France so our rates were lower. Now the question is where is likely to grow fastest and start pushing interest rates up fastest? The answer is again the UK.
Personally I think Danny Alexander deserves a lot of the blame. He has been simply excellent at a very difficult job.
Nope nothing has fundamentally changed . It is simply pbtories like yourself trying to spin something as positive one day and the opposite as positive the next without realising how ridiculous it makes you look .
On 20th March in the budget Osborne announced that the OBR forecast growth for 2013 of 0.6%, the same as was achieved in Q2. Even you cannot believe that nothing has changed.
All that tells us is that Osborne is a rubbish economic forecaster and worse Chancellor .
Let's hope that none of the solicitors involved is a CON OR LD activist.
Mike thats a huge red herring, wasn't this will drafted 12 years ago. When Labour were in power ?
Of course this is a great way of getting 15 minutes of fame, even if it is after death. I wonder what the family (if there are any) are thinking right now?
I might just re-draft my will to irritate the children.
I can't recall which vulture journalist was trying to make this story but three spring to mind who promptly shut up.
One said something like 'Mrs Edwards was 80 when she drew up her will so that was under Labour' then implied that the money was intended for Labour because being 80 was close to falling off her perch.
The level some stoop to is frankly very peculiar and grubby. That they write for the FT and C4 just makes it worse.
"I was a Conservative member for 46 years till recently, I have been impressed by Milliband, he is the type of person who has definitely got what it takes to be PM, PMQ's Cameron never answers a question, I believe that when the Election comes, people will look at the future and say " get rid of this incompetent coalition" good luck Ed you have my Vote!"
Sounds like a reincarnation of Phil "us blues" Roberts!
Bubble policy sending UK debt financing up, now way above France
"way above France" - bless. Like the usual BBC line that the stockmarket "plummeted" 0.3%..?
10-yr rates have been above France for weeks now. But, critically, and especially with regard to your "Tories spending more than Labour" meme, they are relatively low and come as a direct consequence of the market believing The Osbo when he arrived that the deficit would be addressed.
We know that UK 10 year rates are higher than France and remember when pbtories used to boast how they were lower than than France because of their socialist president .
But that is because the story has fundamentally changed. The question used to be where is your money safest? We were safer than France so our rates were lower. Now the question is where is likely to grow fastest and start pushing interest rates up fastest? The answer is again the UK.
Personally I think Danny Alexander deserves a lot of the blame. He has been simply excellent at a very difficult job.
Nope nothing has fundamentally changed . It is simply pbtories like yourself trying to spin something as positive one day and the opposite as positive the next without realising how ridiculous it makes you look .
On 20th March in the budget Osborne announced that the OBR forecast growth for 2013 of 0.6%, the same as was achieved in Q2. Even you cannot believe that nothing has changed.
German rates gone up have they?
Fact is that the bubble policy of Osborne and Carney, including promises of no interest rate rises for years isn't believed by the markets as you've said yourself upthread.
So what should savers do? Property looks like a one way bet doesn't it, with the bubble boys in charge
Yes, yes it does. There is a lot of catching up to do, especially outside London.
Great fun. Recommend. Also good if you want to escape angry atheists.
You're heading for 500 comments atm, maybe you can offer a trip to Holy Island for the best atheist comment and some signed bibles for the runners-up. Should keep things ticking over nicely.
I had a drink with some Telegraph bigwigs t'other day and they told me - interestingly - that more important than the number of comments is the number of "shares" - i.e. Twitter links, Facebook links, Reddits, etc
A piece can generate 1000 comments - and that's great and v welcome - but that can just be three old stoners arguing about cheese, online, at 3am. Whereas actual links prove the Telegraph website is being accessed by lots of different people. Anything that gets anywhere near the magic 1000 links is gold-dust. ATM the piece has 800 links (and it's still going up) so it's done the job.
It was an intriguing insight into the scary new world of digital journalism.
I've never understood why the telegraph was happy to use a third party comments systems (disqus).
Running the comments system in house means they have the email address of their readers, they can then email them about new stuff, or if their visits/comments decline in frequency.
Great fun. Recommend. Also good if you want to escape angry atheists.
Best view over London - a right hand window seat on a plane making its final descent into Heathrow. Stunning night or day. Can't think of a better final 15 minutes into any big city anywhere. For a first time visitor it must be magical. Shame about the rip-off journey back into town after that though.
Agree. Great isn't it. I especially like trying to pick out the football grounds if the floodlights are on.
Comments
Now the trick is of course not to crash the housing market with rate rises and reduce the demand that way by taking from borrowers, of which there are too many who have borrowed too much, prime of which is the State (which is why HMG is priming the pump by underwriting mortgages much to my concern). Slowly, slowly is what we need, but rate/gilt yield rises in the long run to sensible levels are good.
Does anyone know if the solicitors are also the Executors and if so what their charge on the estate for handling the probate is likely to be? Should be about £1,500 to £2,000 for a straightforword single house, but probably a % on the estate and if 3% (typical from banks) that is £15,000! Even 2% is £10,000.
Right? Right...?
The swing comes almost entirely from the reduction in LD votes.
The Labour gains are striking , particularly in 2005 when you would have thought despite the loss of the incumbent, the LD's would have retained many "Iraq" voters.
The faster we get back to a fully-functioning economy with normal interest rates (+/- 5%) the better IMV
Given that in 2005 the national change included a large Labour - Lib Dem swing, then it is not surprising that without the incumbent the Lib Dems would have achieved a smaller swing - expressed as a swing in the opposite direction.
I certainly think that people underestimate just how extraordinary the current rates of interest are. The lowest rate in history unchanged now since March 2009. It is incredible how we have got used to this and ignored the incredible pain inflicted on savers as a result.
If people are to be encouraged to save interest rates need to increase to a rate that gives a real return. We have not seen that for more than 5 years. Only fear and a lack of safe alternatives have allowed governments to borrow at these rates. If better opportunities are available and the government has to pay more to borrow that is a good thing. It is probably too cheap for their own good at the moment making deficit reduction seem less screamingly urgent than it is.
My guess is that we will see small, incremental changes next year, especially if the EZ starts to help out and growth continues at anything like its current rate. So the gilt rates make perfect sense to me.
www.telegraph.co.uk › Finance › News by Sector › Transport
4 November 2009 - “Britain's first £1,000 train ticket sparks row over soaring rail fares”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224906/First-1000-UK-train-fare-Newquay-Kyle-Lochalsh-sparks-outrage-soaring-prices.html#ixzz2bxUfIjqC
Really can’t see this as the knock-out punch in Ed’s attack line can you?- what exactly did Labour do about the high cost of rail fares during their 13 years in power, apart from leaving them exorbitantly much higher than when they took office? - The same goes for 'utilities',,,!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-23699396
The only person I saw continuing to tweet about it was the Mail journalist who generated it. He tried to make it SomeoneElsesFault and then shut up.
And then it was overtaken by Eg Miliband. Has anyone seen coverage of his actual speech? I haven't nor twitters about. Sunk without trace appears to sum it up.
It's certainly a spectacularly bad bit of drafting, though. If, as Davis Wood say, "It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death", then why in the name of heaven didn't they use that wording?
On 1st day back, @Ed_Miliband throws out 'iron discipline' & makes a £465m unfunded commitment to restore spare room subsidy #sameoldlabour
I might just re-draft my will to irritate the children.
I've given up and mostly drive now.
I personally think she meant whichever "government" in power, i.e. help the country. It was just badly drafted.
At the moment there is a perceived risk, built on more rapid growth and housing policy that there may be a need to increase rates within a 12-18 month time frame. This affects gilts but gilts do not directly affect interest rates. Whether those increases come to pass will depend on the future path of the UK economy.
If you are like hunchman, who was putting forward his crash idea yet again last night, you might think that the idea of interest rate increases is absurd. Thankfully the UK economy is in safer hands than that.
Market yields are what has risen - this will likely impact funding rates for banks and the terms that they will lend on, but it's an imprecise relationship.
http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/NQY/KYL/tomorrow/0615/dep/310813/0815/dep
If you ever get a ticket price of over £700, it would be worth considering a 7-day All-Line Rover for £702 first class, or £464 standard. There are some exclusions, but not many.
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/pr20780b0a0400020167ed620a7e504e.aspx
You could have an arguement as whether the payment should be reflected as negative revenues (i.e. reversing out the original transaction) or it could also be considered "other operating expenses".
The only risk (and I haven't looked at prior years) is if the parties publish a list of, say, their 10 largest donations & they don't have 10 larger than this.
Although I could imagine a conversation as follows:
- 'Did you pay the money to the Treasury'?
- 'We said we would write them a cheque and we did'
- But did you give them the cheque'?
[after all, according to rumour, Bernie Ecclestone never cashed the £1m cheque when Labour repaid his donation]
For Ed Miliband, the Independent, and others who can't understand the incredibly simple fact that moving out of a house or flat frees it up for someone else, this article explains it:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2013/08/whatever-you-might-read-in-the-independent-in-cornwall-the-spare-room-subsidy-cut-is-working.html
Having said that, the best lawyers are absolutely superb. But you can't tell in advance how good they are, and it all comes down to individuals. Paying megabucks for a top firm doesn't necessarily buy you the best. (I had a great example a few years ago when one of the top four firms completely failed to notice my company had a subsidiary company, which meant all the clauses they had painstakingly and expensively insisted on weren't worth a bean as they didn't bind the subsidiary. Luckily they were working for the other side.)
That made the Daily Mail too.
Another alternative is to live in London, where only madmen drive or indeed have a car at all, as public transport is nearly always faster, cheaper and less frustrating. But I appreciate there are some practical difficulties in moving the entire population to London.
10-yr rates have been above France for weeks now. But, critically, and especially with regard to your "Tories spending more than Labour" meme, they are relatively low and come as a direct consequence of the market believing The Osbo when he arrived that the deficit would be addressed.
What is the rationale of the Liberal Democrats 20% share ? Are they so weak that they could not demand 50%. They should understand that on every government decision , they hold a veto.
What would the Tories have done if they had asked for 50% ? Go to the press ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10239982/Ed-Miliband-is-a-b-and-thats-a-good-thing.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-with-time-running-out-its-now-open-season-on-ed-miliband-8761121.html
Not sure an FOI request would reveal information on a specific payment (privacy) and are the parties open to them?
I have Grey, Hamilton and Nairne cousins (although we always insisted on a hyphenation...)
This would be the best way of clearing the mess up.
Of course, for the small number of exceptional cases, exceptions should be made. That's why the government has established a fund for exactly that purpose.
I always think I have been in London too long when I start to get annoyed if I have to wait more than 5 minutes for a tube.
Is he IDS or Hague in a baseball cap or Brown listening to the Artic Monkeys ?
Personally I think Danny Alexander deserves a lot of the blame. He has been simply excellent at a very difficult job.
Hainault - Woodford = 20 min. frequency
Chalfont & Latimer - Amersham = 30 min.
Chalfont & Latimer - Chesham = 30 min.
Actually, you don't. You know perfectly well how broad the term 'disabled' is in the official definitions: 6.9 million people of working age. Those attacking the government are being extremely dishonest by citing examples of people with spina bifida, or needing dialysis, and implying this is typical.
Meanwhile - how many disabled people are stuck in the over-crowded accomodation?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-14/abbott-denies-saying-gay-marriage-is-the-fashion-of-the-moment/4886922
A couple of years ago two jackasses I know were in the early stages of being pursued for debts related to a social club they had managed to destroy.
Sadly, at the same time, their wife/mother was dying of cancer and the family property was all in her name. Two days before she died she made a will leaving everything to the two jackasses. A few months later they were made bankrupt for the club debts, and so their inheritance was lost, becoming the property of the Official Receiver. If these two had discussed their predicament with the solicitors drawing up the will, they would have redrafted it in such a way that the property was protected, e.g. by writing it in a Trust...
One said something like 'Mrs Edwards was 80 when she drew up her will so that was under Labour' then implied that the money was intended for Labour because being 80 was close to falling off her perch.
The level some stoop to is frankly very peculiar and grubby. That they write for the FT and C4 just makes it worse.
"I was a Conservative member for 46 years till recently, I have been impressed by Milliband, he is the type of person who has definitely got what it takes to be PM, PMQ's Cameron never answers a question, I believe that when the Election comes, people will look at the future and say " get rid of this incompetent coalition" good luck Ed you have my Vote!"
Sounds like a reincarnation of Phil "us blues" Roberts!
Of course, a drunk man may be happier than a sober one, but that doesn't mean whisky is divine.
Running the comments system in house means they have the email address of their readers, they can then email them about new stuff, or if their visits/comments decline in frequency.
It's about as convincing as an unsolicited e-mail from the crown prince of Nigeria.