Surely the politically sensible thing to do would be to "cancel" all student debt and just call it a graduate tax of 9% on earnings above £25,000 payable by anyone who went to university since the fees went up to £9k.
This would cost the Govt nil but would be presentationally much better.
NB. Don't change it for people who paid fees of £3k as they have a much lower debt which they can repay.
Only tricky bit would be cut-off for those who had some fees at £3k and some at £9k - maybe given them the choice.
Ah yes, a proposal that will make young people worse off than they are currently. That will help win them over.
How would it make young people worse off?
For those that do not repay all their loans it will be neutral, for those that earn enough to pay off their loans then they will repay more. No young person gains, a decent amount lose.
So it makes the richest young people worse off? And how much do you have to earn to pay it off before you are 35, for example?
In any case, a graduate tax could be far lower than 9%, as high earners will keep paying it.
I've yet to see a proposal to make it less than 9%, and was responding to a proposal of 9%. It also depends entirely on how much you take out, I know people that are funding the majority of their degree via work and will end up with ~£10k of loans.
Age is by far the best determinant of whether you vote Conservative or Labour.
Those Conservative figures look too symmetrical to be true.
It's corroboration by another polling company for the point the Guardian article was making. But it does suggest the Conservatives have a demographic problem rather than a policy or execution policy. To put it crudely, the Conservative Party is literally dying.
We've heard that before
Centrist Dads are the swing constituency. Blair and Ashdown won them over, then Cameron and Clegg did.
I think that they are suspicious of Jezza, but repelled by May. Could BoJo win them? I don't think so, but this is his chance.
The Murdoch stable obviously think May is damaged goods and want a replacement in as soon as possible , as they do not now trust her on the EU or stopping Labour.
Just heard the new UKIP leader on the radio and he sounds like a complete dork.
What happened to the anti-Islam woman? That was their last chance to remain relevant.
UKIP, leader and dork all belong naturally in the same sentence.
Your prejudice shows in that comment. Bolton is an ex LiB Dem candidate, ex Army and Police, has an OBE for international security and speaks well. He has also removed the cap on immigration.
I do not support UKIP at all but he does seem to be a big improvement on Farage et al
He's a member of UKIP so he's exactly as bad as Farage.
Well intolerance is the way of the hard left these days and I do not have any interest in UKIP
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories were back in power after 6 years, after 1964 after 6 years too and after 1974 after just 5 years. Only New Labour of postwar Labour governments lasted over a decade and Corbyn is no Attlee or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
Great. So we have to go through this all over again every 40 years.
The student loan threshold change is positive. It's a cop out if it's not relinked to RPI, though.
Do you not mean CPI
The threshold for the original plan2 loans were linked to average earnings. The interest is linked to RPI, so really the threshold should be, too.
Permanently raising it, but freezing the level, allows the treasury to sell off the loans and get a much higher rate for them than if the threshold was linked to earnings.
As an investment, student loans with a frozen threshold are a fantastic inflation-protected asset. Pension funds etc love them.
Sorry I misunderstood your comment and yes as far as I am aware the threshold will be linked to RPI
Surely the politically sensible thing to do would be to "cancel" all student debt and just call it a graduate tax of 9% on earnings above £25,000 payable by anyone who went to university since the fees went up to £9k.
This would cost the Govt nil but would be presentationally much better.
NB. Don't change it for people who paid fees of £3k as they have a much lower debt which they can repay.
Only tricky bit would be cut-off for those who had some fees at £3k and some at £9k - maybe given them the choice.
Ah yes, a proposal that will make young people worse off than they are currently. That will help win them over.
It would make no difference to approx 75% of people.
Yes, high earners would pay more - if you want to avoid that then put a maximum cap on the total graduate tax that could ever be paid over a lifetime.
The point is to get rid of the mindset of debt - that is the problem.
And it can be done without costing the Treasury anything - or only very little.
Then it also removes the option for people to self fund via part time work. The best way to reduce the mindset of debt is to put our tuition fees somewhere in the region of every other nation (bar some of the US) in the world. How come Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Spain etc can afford no or low fees while we can't?
Age is by far the best determinant of whether you vote Conservative or Labour.
Those Conservative figures look too symmetrical to be true.
It's corroboration by another polling company for the point the Guardian article was making. But it does suggest the Conservatives have a demographic problem rather than a policy or execution policy. To put it crudely, the Conservative Party is literally dying.
We've heard that before
I know. The Conservatives are not extinct yet, but they look to be going that way, unless something fundamental changes. The fundamentals aren't good for them, in particular Brexit isn't good for them.
Let us not forget they did get 42% of the vote at the last election.
Sure. The 60+ group is keeping the Conservatives afloat. They are probably OK on the demographics to the next election, all other things being equal (which they won't be of course), but they will have an existentially serious demographic problem for the election after that. Unless something changes.
And how many people said they had the same demographic problem in 1997?
Reasonable question. It took the Conservatives thirteen years to partially, but by no means completely, reverse that problem. Within another seven years they are back to where they were. (Probably - I don't have the 1997 and 2010 age breakdowns)
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories were back in power after 6 years, after 1964 after 6 years too and after 1974 after just 5 years. Only New Labour of postwar Labour governments lasted over a decade and Corbyn is no Attlee or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
The student loan threshold change is positive. It's a cop out if it's not relinked to RPI, though.
Do you not mean CPI
The threshold for the original plan2 loans were linked to average earnings. The interest is linked to RPI, so really the threshold should be, too.
Permanently raising it, but freezing the level, allows the treasury to sell off the loans and get a much higher rate for them than if the threshold was linked to earnings.
As an investment, student loans with a frozen threshold are a fantastic inflation-protected asset. Pension funds etc love them.
Student Loans are sub prime. We know at least a third will not be paid back. They are only "good value" because they are backed by government.
Surely the politically sensible thing to do would be to "cancel" all student debt and just call it a graduate tax of 9% on earnings above £25,000 payable by anyone who went to university since the fees went up to £9k.
This would cost the Govt nil but would be presentationally much better.
NB. Don't change it for people who paid fees of £3k as they have a much lower debt which they can repay.
Only tricky bit would be cut-off for those who had some fees at £3k and some at £9k - maybe given them the choice.
Ah yes, a proposal that will make young people worse off than they are currently. That will help win them over.
How would it make young people worse off?
For those that do not repay all their loans it will be neutral, for those that earn enough to pay off their loans then they will repay more. No young person gains, a decent amount lose.
So it makes the richest young people worse off? And how much do you have to earn to pay it off before you are 35, for example?
In any case, a graduate tax could be far lower than 9%, as high earners will keep paying it.
I've yet to see a proposal to make it less than 9%, and was responding to a proposal of 9%. It also depends entirely on how much you take out, I know people that are funding the majority of their degree via work and will end up with ~£10k of loans.
Ending with £10k is definitely on the low end of the distribution. Average debt is nearer £32k, which would take far longer to repay (if at all).
Yeah, it is, but under a flat graduate tax it removes the chance of doing that. Also I believe that for people still in uni, by the time they graduate they'll be about £55k in debt on average This entire debate is a bit of a distraction for me, how come almost every other country can afford low or no fees and we can't?
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
Easy as pie. When yoor fund in shares bonds property or whatever gets to 990k or thereabouts switch it all to cash that is paying 0.25%. Should take one working day to do.
Just heard the new UKIP leader on the radio and he sounds like a complete dork.
What happened to the anti-Islam woman? That was their last chance to remain relevant.
UKIP, leader and dork all belong naturally in the same sentence.
Your prejudice shows in that comment. Bolton is an ex LiB Dem candidate, ex Army and Police, has an OBE for international security and speaks well. He has also removed the cap on immigration.
I do not support UKIP at all but he does seem to be a big improvement on Farage et al
He's a member of UKIP so he's exactly as bad as Farage.
Well intolerance is the way of the hard left these days and I do not have any interest in UKIP
Never voted Labour in my life. UKIP have done their best to destroy this country and I'll never think anything but disdain anyone who is a member
Pick though the tropes in the Sunday Times story. It's a masterclass. #1 The SAS and Queen references are archetypes of Britishness likely to appeal to Conservative voters. May is cast in opposition to them. It's a conservative attack not a left liberal one. #2 The references to her mental health are reminiscent of the ' rumours ' about Gordon Brown's anti depressant use.Which were nothing to do with medication and everything to do with popular prejudice about mental strength. #3 The crying/make up thing is a classic sexist trope.
Be in no doubt they are trying to topple her soon so the Hard Brexiters can shape or in all probability blow up the A50 negotiations. This is happening. The questions now are #1 Will there be a counter attack by the same wing of the Tories ? #2 Will it work ?
I
The story will be very well sourced, and accurate.
Where did I say it was badly sourced or inaccurate ? I said it was a masterclass and specifically a masterclass of varying tropes designed to finish her. None of that is incompatible with it being well sourced or accurate. You can construct a brutally damaging and pre scripted narrative from careful arrangement of things are individually well sourced.
I don't see any motive or agenda here, yet alone a prescripted agenda. It's a scoop and a story.
I think you're being paranoid.
I think you're pretending to be thick again for tribal purposes. Your problem is your elitist and patrician sense of entitlement. Which is amusing as it's what you accused Remoaners of. Like all very clever globalising right wing Brexiters you feel you own Brexit and it must mean X because it always has in your world and certain socioeconomic frameworks are like the laws of physics.
But now having set the building on fire to get what you wanted your observing the chaos in anger and bewilderment. You are shouting at the flames and collapsing masonry telling them they are are misbehaving but the chaos does care. Pound Shop Dr Frankenstein's complaining the monster you built to get what you want is no longer under control.
So faced with the latest development in the unfolding chaos, the Sunday Times story, you are reduced to denying the obvious and using mildly abusive words like " Paranoid ". Physician heal thyself.
Great post YS
The only tribalism on display here is from you two.
I mourn your Twitter feed, which is bereft of the serious, sober and objective analysis you were once renowned and respected for. Now, it's just a desperate 24/7 "has public opinion moved yet?" pollwatch from a Remainer in denial.
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
Easy as pie. When yoor fund in shares bonds property or whatever gets to 990k or thereabouts switch it all to cash that is paying 0.25%. Should take one working day to do.
If 55 it is possible to crystallise and take the lump sum and freeze the rest.
I have been doing my own pension sums recently, so looking at the options.
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
Just heard the new UKIP leader on the radio and he sounds like a complete dork.
What happened to the anti-Islam woman? That was their last chance to remain relevant.
UKIP, leader and dork all belong naturally in the same sentence.
Your prejudice shows in that comment. Bolton is an ex LiB Dem candidate, ex Army and Police, has an OBE for international security and speaks well. He has also removed the cap on immigration.
I do not support UKIP at all but he does seem to be a big improvement on Farage et al
He's a member of UKIP so he's exactly as bad as Farage.
Well intolerance is the way of the hard left these days and I do not have any interest in UKIP
Never voted Labour in my life. UKIP have done their best to destroy this country and I'll never think anything but disdain anyone who is a member
That is because you are a bigoted moron who has never tried to understand the views of the majority of the country.
Surely the politically sensible thing to do would be to "cancel" all student debt and just call it a graduate tax of 9% on earnings above £25,000 payable by anyone who went to university since the fees went up to £9k.
This would cost the Govt nil but would be presentationally much better.
NB. Don't change it for people who paid fees of £3k as they have a much lower debt which they can repay.
Only tricky bit would be cut-off for those who had some fees at £3k and some at £9k - maybe given them the choice.
Ah yes, a proposal that will make young people worse off than they are currently. That will help win them over.
It would make no difference to approx 75% of people.
Yes, high earners would pay more - if you want to avoid that then put a maximum cap on the total graduate tax that could ever be paid over a lifetime.
The point is to get rid of the mindset of debt - that is the problem.
And it can be done without costing the Treasury anything - or only very little.
Then it also removes the option for people to self fund via part time work. The best way to reduce the mindset of debt is to put our tuition fees somewhere in the region of every other nation (bar some of the US) in the world. How come Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Spain etc can afford no or low fees while we can't?
That is a good question. The answer is that the staff employed in UK Universities tend to have less teaching than say staff in equivalent positions in France or Germany. Facilities in French Universities & German university are somewhat worse, and class sizes are somewhat larger.
The UK university system is expensive. However, when lists of the top 50 or 100 world Universities are produced, there are many more UK universities than French or German ones in the list.
It is also the case that many in France, for example, go to the local University, so their living costs are also reduced in comparison to UK students.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories were back in power after 6 years, after 1964 after 6 years too and after 1974 after just 5 years. Only New Labour of postwar Labour governments lasted over a decade and Corbyn is no Attlee or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
Well the last pre-Blair Labour government of 1974-1979 had an effective top income tax rate of 98%, nationalised airlines, railways, utilities, BT and Royal Mail, inflation of 13% and rampant union militancy, socialism as far as I am concerned and as far as those who elected Thatcher in 1979 were concerned too
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories were back in power after 6 years, after 1964 after 6 years too and after 1974 after just 5 years. Only New Labour of postwar Labour governments lasted over a decade and Corbyn is no Attlee or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
I'm well over 60 and there has never been socialism in the UK, and probably never will be, except in the minds of Daily Mail readers and the pr department of the Tories
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Have you calculated how much this would raise to fund Student Fees?
A more rational approach would be to extend NI beyond retirement, so it is payable by all, or absorb it into income tax. This would raise more money, and not just create disincentives to save. It also has the advantage of simplicty and harder for accountants to dodge.
Just heard the new UKIP leader on the radio and he sounds like a complete dork.
What happened to the anti-Islam woman? That was their last chance to remain relevant.
UKIP, leader and dork all belong naturally in the same sentence.
Your prejudice shows in that comment. Bolton is an ex LiB Dem candidate, ex Army and Police, has an OBE for international security and speaks well. He has also removed the cap on immigration.
I do not support UKIP at all but he does seem to be a big improvement on Farage et al
He's a member of UKIP so he's exactly as bad as Farage.
Well intolerance is the way of the hard left these days and I do not have any interest in UKIP
Never voted Labour in my life. UKIP have done their best to destroy this country and I'll never think anything but disdain anyone who is a member
That is because you are a bigoted moron who has never tried to understand the views of the majority of the country.
Which views i would like to try to understand this majority view you talk about. No need to call someone you dont know a bigoted moron either Richard
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories were back in power after 6 years, after 1964 after 6 years too and after 1974 after just 5 years. Only New Labour of postwar Labour governments lasted over a decade and Corbyn is no Attlee or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
I'm well over 60 and there has never been socialism in the UK, and probably never will be, except in the minds of Daily Mail readers and the pr department of the Tories
Socialism is a top tax rate over 50% and largescale nationalised industries and unions having a stranglehold over the economy, we had socialism effectively in the UK from 1945 to 1979 if rather less so when the Tories got in than Labour
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Re b) I'm not a pensioner but why should I have paid top whack NI for over three decades to get nothing? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth ( quite the opposite!), but I am to be screwed over for having just worked hard at something uncontroversial for over thirty years? And one wonders why Corbyn creates fear as well as adoration?
Students get a raw deal I do not doubt. The route cause is the insane idea introduce by Blair of sending 40-50% to uni. All else on student funding flows from that. I thought it was nuts then, I think it's nuts now, but you'd deprive me of my state pension nevertheless?
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Re b) I'm not a pensioner but why should I have paid top whack NI for over three decades to get nothing? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth ( quite the opposite!), but I am to be screwed over for having just worked hard at something uncontroversial for over thirty years? And one wonders why Corbyn creates fear as well as adoration?
Students get a raw deal I do not doubt. The route cause is the insane idea introduce by Blair of sending 40-50% to uni. All else on student funding flows from that. I thought it was nuts then, I think it's nuts now, but you'd deprive me of my state pension nevertheless?
If you have enough to qualify for the £1m threshold then you shouldn't need the state pension. With regards to NI, the simple answer would be to combine NI & Income tax so that people don't get deceived into thinking that their NI is for the pension.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
'If you have enough to qualify for the £1m threshold then you shouldn't need the state pension. With regards to NI, the simple answer would be to combine NI & Income tax so that people don't get deceived into thinking that their NI is for the pension.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.'
I would pay fees for doctors, teachers, scientists and engineers subject to a period of up to 10 years working in the UK on a sliding scale if they left earlier
I have no idea why nurses need degrees and many other courses could be reduced to 2 years
There is an indication tonight that TM will bring back maintenance allowances
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Re b) I'm not a pensioner but why should I have paid top whack NI for over three decades to get nothing? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth ( quite the opposite!), but I am to be screwed over for having just worked hard at something uncontroversial for over thirty years? And one wonders why Corbyn creates fear as well as adoration?
Students get a raw deal I do not doubt. The route cau
If you have enough to qualify for the £1m threshold then you shouldn't need the state pension. With regards to NI, the simple answer would be to combine NI & Income tax so that people don't get deceived into thinking that their NI is for the pension.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
40-50% going to Uni is the norm in developed countries. All of our competitors see an educated workforce as essential.
There is a need for courses to have more contact time and to be more rigorous. Currently undergraduate teaching is a subsidy and annoyance to academic staff. Career progression is all about publications and grants, not teaching.
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Re b) I'm not a pensioner but why should I have paid top whack NI for over three decades to get nothing? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth ( quite the opposite!), but I am to be screwed over for having just worked hard at something uncontroversial for over thirty years? And one wonders why Corbyn creates fear as well as adoration?
Students get a raw deal I do not doubt. The route cau
If you have enough to qualify for the £1m threshold then you shouldn't need the state pension. With regards to NI, the simple answer would be to combine NI & Income tax so that people don't get deceived into thinking that their NI is for the pension.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
40-50% going to Uni is the norm in developed countries. All of our competitors see an educated workforce as essential.
There is a need for courses to have more contact time and o be more rigorous. Currently undergraduate teaching is a subsidy and annoyance to academic staff. Career progression is all about publications and grants, not teaching.
To be honest I reckon some of the issue is that since so many people go to uni, it leaves apprenticeships to be (wrongly) seen as for those that were too dumb to go to uni.
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
( quite the opposite!), but I am to be screwed over for having just worked hard at something uncontroversial for over thirty years? And one wonders why Corbyn creates fear as well as adoration?
Students get a raw deal I do not doubt. The route cau
If you have enough to qualify for the £1m threshold then you shouldn't need the state pension. With regards to NI, the simple answer wombine NI & Income tax so that people don't get deceived into thinking that their NI is for the pension.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
40-50% going to Uni is the norm in developed countries. All of our competitors see an educated workforce as essential.
There is a need for courses to have more contact time and o be more rigorous. Currently undergraduate teaching is a subsidy and annoyance to academic staff. Career progression is all about publications and grants, not teaching.
People used to argue that secondary education should be optional.
Nothing wrong with 50% plus going to university at all. There is no magical difference in what you learn at university. More specialisation and more depth.
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Re b) I'm not a pensioner but why should I have paid top whack NI for over three decades to get nothing? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth ( quite the opposite!), but I am to be screwed over for having just worked hard at something uncontroversial for over thirty years? And one wonders why Corbyn creates fear as well as adoration?
Students get a raw deal I do not doubt. The route cause is the insane idea introduce by Blair of sending 40-50% to uni. All else on student funding flows from that. I thought it was nuts then, I think it's nuts now, but you'd deprive me of my state pension nevertheless?
If you have enough to qualify for the £1m threshold then you shouldn't need the state pension. With regards to NI, the simple answer would be to combine NI & Income tax so that people don't get deceived into thinking that their NI is for the pension.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
Actually we need more NI, preferably paying for social care too, not less and it does pay your state pension in the sense that you have to have recorded NI contributions or credits to receive a state pension
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Re b) I'm not a pensioner but why should I have paid top whack NI for over three decades to get nothing? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth ( quite the opposite!), but I am to be screwed over for having just worked hard at something uncontroversial for over thirty years? And one wonders why Corbyn creates fear as well as adoration?
Students get a raw deal I do not doubt. The route cau
If you have enough to qualify for the £1m threshold then you shouldn't need the state pension. With regards to NI, the simple answer would be to combine NI & Income tax so that people don't get deceived into thinking that their NI is for the pension.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
40-50% going to Uni is the norm in developed countries. All of our competitors see an educated workforce as essential.
There is a need for courses to have more contact time and o be more rigorous. Currently undergraduate teaching is a subsidy and annoyance to academic staff. Career progression is all about publications and grants, not teaching.
To be honest I reckon some of the issue is that since so many people go to uni, it leaves apprenticeships to be (wrongly) seen as for those that were too dumb to go to uni.
Indeed especially as top grade apprentices earn more than all graduates on average bar those who went to Russell Group universities
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Re b) I'm not a pensioner but why should I have paid top whack NI for over three decades to get nothing? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth ( quite the opposite!), but
If you have enough to qualify for the £1m threshold then you shouldn't need the state pension. With regards to NI, the simple answer would be to combine NI & Income tax so that people don't get deceived into thinking that their NI is for the pension.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
Actually we need more NI, preferably paying for social care too, not less and it does pay your state pension in the sense that you have to have recorded NI contributions or credits to receive a state pension
NI on pensioners makes sense. It is s progressive tax, and while would raise funds for NHS and Social care from those that use these most of all.
Merging it with income tax makes sense as it simplifies collection. It may need a newer lower band as the NI threshold is lower than for Income tax.
I still cannot get over when it was said he was being unlawfully detained. The first time someone had managed it without being detained, I should think.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Anyway, it looks like May is a goner and in the absence of an obvious alternative, Johnson has to be the front runner, despite the lack of any qualification for the job in terms of competence, track record, leadership, direction or moral authority. Astonishingly even Corbyn has more going for him. We live in interesting times.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
The student loan threshold change is positive. It's a cop out if it's not relinked to RPI, though.
Do you not mean CPI
The threshold for the original plan2 loans were linked to average earnings. The interest is linked to RPI, so really the threshold should be, too.
Permanently raising it, but freezing the level, allows the treasury to sell off the loans and get a much higher rate for them than if the threshold was linked to earnings.
As an investment, student loans with a frozen threshold are a fantastic inflation-protected asset. Pension funds etc love them.
Student Loans are sub prime. We know at least a third will not be paid back. They are only "good value" because they are backed by government.
Sure.
Osborne et al designed the plan2 student loans as a very interesting - and very market friendly financial product. They're actually pretty clever.
They get grouped together and graded into prime/subprime batches and sold at whatever price the market bids for them.
The repayment threshold - and whether it is inflation/earnings linked - is one of the crucial factors determining their value to investors, and how much the exchequer gets back from the sale.
They're never going to be worth face value, but the future potential discount rate shrank significantly, with Osbornes little accounting trick back in 2015.
IIRC, IFS put the loss to plan2 graduates at £3k average across the governments whole book - or £6k for the median earning graduate.
It'll be interesting to see how the figures change if May does up the threshold to £25k. I'm not buying the government spin/figures until I've seen the details.
Just heard the new UKIP leader on the radio and he sounds like a complete dork.
What happened to the anti-Islam woman? That was their last chance to remain relevant.
Not capping immigration either
And second
So the 80% of people in the UK who would like to see a limit to immigration can now vote for....no one at all.
They can vote for a Boris led Tory Party which will end free movement after the transition period post Brexit though if that is his policy Bolton might even lose voters to the BNP while failing to gain any from the main 3 parties
Boris is pro-immigration, he just doesn't like the EU.
The student loan threshold change is positive. It's a cop out if it's not relinked to RPI, though.
Do you not mean CPI
The threshold for the original plan2 loans were linked to average earnings. The interest is linked to RPI, so really the threshold should be, too.
Permanently raising it, but freezing the level, allows the treasury to sell off the loans and get a much higher rate for them than if the threshold was linked to earnings.
As an investment, student loans with a frozen threshold are a fantastic inflation-protected asset. Pension funds etc love them.
Student Loans are sub prime. We know at least a third will not be paid back. They are only "good value" because they are backed by government.
They're never going to be worth face value, but the future potential discount rate shrank significantly, with Osbornes little accounting trick back in 2015.
Was freezing the repayment threshold mentioned in the 2015 Conservative manifesto ?
The student loan threshold change is positive. It's a cop out if it's not relinked to RPI, though.
Do you not mean CPI
The threshold for the original plan2 loans were linked to average earnings. The interest is linked to RPI, so really the threshold should be, too.
Permanently raising it, but freezing the level, allows the treasury to sell off the loans and get a much higher rate for them than if the threshold was linked to earnings.
As an investment, student loans with a frozen threshold are a fantastic inflation-protected asset. Pension funds etc love them.
Student Loans are sub prime. We know at least a third will not be paid back. They are only "good value" because they are backed by government.
They're never going to be worth face value, but the future potential discount rate shrank significantly, with Osbornes little accounting trick back in 2015.
Was freezing the repayment threshold mentioned in the 2015 Conservative manifesto ?
It wasnt even mentioned in the autumn statement when he made the change. It was buried deep in the footnotes.
In reality, it was announced piecemeal whenever EdM's polling rose during the 2015 campaign. Remember?
7 day NHS, free all day childcare for all toddlers etc etc.
The plan was to blame the LD's when the insane unfunded promises got ditched during the coalition V.2 negotiations.
They ended up winning a bloody majority, didn't they? So Osborne dug deep into the student loan t&c's to find his cash.
Democrats currently have an 11% lead for the House in next year's midterms over the GOP in the latest PPP poll, to put it in perspective that is more than double the lead Labour has over the Tories on even the best poll for Corbyn. Even Trump has abandoned the GOP leadership and is now starting to work with Pelosi and Schumer http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/09/2018-shaping-up-big-for-democrats.html
Interestingly the same poll has Sanders leading Trump in a hypothetical 2020 poll by 11% and Biden leading Trump by 13% and Warren leading Trump by 6%. Hillary Clinton led Trump by 5% as a baseline for comparison
Just heard the new UKIP leader on the radio and he sounds like a complete dork.
What happened to the anti-Islam woman? That was their last chance to remain relevant.
Not capping immigration either
And second
So the 80% of people in the UK who would like to see a limit to immigration can now vote for....no one at all.
They can vote for a Boris led Tory Party which will end free movement after the transition period post Brexit though if that is his policy Bolton might even lose voters to the BNP while failing to gain any from the main 3 parties
Boris is pro-immigration, he just doesn't like the EU.
He wants a points system for immigration, focused on immigration we need
As someone who is typing this from inside a uni - the £250 saving for each of the next 2 years, plus the £360 from then on in is appreciated. However in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. The obvious solution to all this is to take some money from the pensioners, they've had a life time to prepare for their retirement. Or on a slightly less radical note, if someone has a pension pot of above £1m, they should be ineligible for the Govt. pension, WFA, bus passes etc.
So
a) They will freeze their pot ( the very very very few that have £1m ) at £999k. b) If you've paid NI for 35 years with the govt saying " you get a pension" and it's taken away - where's the fairness? c) Given a pot of £1m buys you an index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension (a standard public sector terms pension) of about £28k, are public sector pensioners who get more than 28k ( say deputy school heads) going to be so penalised too?
How could you do a)?
a) Then you could tier it very simply, for upwards of 900k for example £1 of state pension gets withdrawn for every £20 above 900k (so it will still be beneficial to have the largest number possible).
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
Re b) I'm not a pensioner but why should I have paid top whack NI for over three decades to get nothing? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth ( quite the opposite!), but
going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
Actually we need more NI, preferably paying for social care too, not less and it does pay your state pension in the sense that you have to have recorded NI contributions or credits to receive a state pension
NI on pensioners makes sense. It is s progressive tax, and while would raise funds for NHS and Social care from those that use these most of all.
Merging it with income tax makes sense as it simplifies collection. It may need a newer lower band as the NI threshold is lower than for Income tax.
I am not necessarily imposed to pensioners paying NI but would prefer to keep it separate from income tax so it is focused on funding welfare provision
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
The one who forms the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
You both won, as you appear to have discovered a magic money bag ?
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
You both won, as you appear to have discovered a magic money bag ?
Indeed. I'd play that game all day long. EV++++++++
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
The person wot drew £310 of course. He has more money than you.
Just heard the new UKIP leader on the radio and he sounds like a complete dork.
What happened to the anti-Islam woman? That was their last chance to remain relevant.
UKIP, leader and dork all belong naturally in the same sentence.
Your prejudice shows in that comment. Bolton is an ex LiB Dem candidate, ex Army and Police, has an OBE for international security and speaks well. He has also removed the cap on immigration.
I do not support UKIP at all but he does seem to be a big improvement on Farage et al
He's a member of UKIP so he's exactly as bad as Farage.
Well intolerance is the way of the hard left these days and I do not have any interest in UKIP
Never voted Labour in my life. UKIP have done their best to destroy this country and I'll never think anything but disdain anyone who is a member
That is because you are a bigoted moron who has never tried to understand the views of the majority of the country.
Which views i would like to try to understand this majority view you talk about. No need to call someone you dont know a bigoted moron either Richard
The majority view that immigration needs to be controlled. Something that Chris A dismisses as racist. And the majority view that we do not wish to be part of a European superstate. Something he dismisses as xenophobic.
Now as it happens I disagree with the majority view on immigration. But what I won't do is what Chris does which is to brand anyone who is opposed to immigration as racist. I see the benefits of migration and others do not. I happen to be in the minority but I respect other people's views. Chris A never has and apparently never will. That is an observation based on many years of his comments on here. So I stand by my comment that his views are both bigoted and moronic.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
Why are we thinking of bribing the EU with £30 billion?
"In an interview with the Observer on the eve of the Tory conference, which opens in Manchester on Sunday, communities secretary Sajid Javid declined to reply when asked if May should lead the Tories into the next election campaign.
After a 40-minute discussion during which he lamented the way the last campaign had focused too much on Brexit and May herself, Javid laughed when asked the question, then stood up and declared: “I think we are out of time.”"
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
The person wot drew £310 of course. He has more money than you.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
The person wot drew £310 of course. He has more money than you.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
The person wot drew £310 of course. He has more money than you.
» show previous quotes 'Boris did beat the Labour candidate twice in London, a largely Labour city, in the Mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012, something Steve Norris and Zac Goldsmith could not do. In fact not even David Cameron could win London in 2010 or 2015 let alone Theresa May in 2017. Boris then effectively beat Cameron in the EU Referendum across the UK as de facto leader of the Leave campaign while Cameron led the Remain campaign'
But you are ignoring the context. His victory over Livingstone in May 2008 occurred when the Labour Government had become highly unpopular - very different to the polling background in 2004 and 2000. In 2012 Johnson's margin of victory was very narrow despite Livingstone by that time being widely perceived as 'Yesterday's man'.Had Labour offered a better candidate he almost certainly would have been defeated.
» show previous quotes 'Boris did beat the Labour candidate twice in London, a largely Labour city, in the Mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012, something Steve Norris and Zac Goldsmith could not do. In fact not even David Cameron could win London in 2010 or 2015 let alone Theresa May in 2017. Boris then effectively beat Cameron in the EU Referendum across the UK as de facto leader of the Leave campaign while Cameron led the Remain campaign'
But you are ignoring the context. His victory over Livingstone in May 2008 occurred when the Labour Government had become highly unpopular - very different to the polling background in 2004 and 2000. In 2012 Johnson's margin of victory was very narrow despite Livingstone by that time being widely perceived as 'Yesterday's man'.Had Labour offered a better candidate he almost certainly would have been defeated.
By 2004 Labour was pretty unpopular, just the Tories were still even more unpopular.
Even David Cameron could not win London in 2010 (post crash) despite Labour being even more unpopular than 2008 yet Boris did beat them in London that year.
Livingstone won the Labour nomination in 2012 because Labour had no other candidate better than him to offer and despite Ed Miliband winning most votes and seats nationally in the local elections that year Boris was re elected as the Tory Mayor in London, a huge personal endorsement for him.
If the student loan changes are as per the observer, then that's great news.
A threshold of £25k + rising with average earnings is far more reasonable than £21k frozen.
Lets see the details & whether or not it actually happens.
I'd still much rather the fees were abolished & 9% put on income tax over £25k for all.
But this is a positive move from May.
It's really expensive, though, which begs the question: Is austerity completely dead, or is Philip moving money around? Or are they going to restrict the number of students, or something?
I'm suspicious. If this unravels it could sink her.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories were back in power after 6 years, after 1964 after 6 years too and after 1974 after just 5 years. Only New Labour of postwar Labour governments lasted over a decade and Corbyn is no Attlee or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
One has to be pretty ignornat - or naieve - to believe that the Callaghan Government was a socialist Government. It had no majority beyond the Autumn of 1976 and was effectively in hock to the financial markets. The nearest we have ever come to a Socialist Command economy was during World War 2 - indeed the electorate hated it so much they gave Attlee a landslide in the 1945 election.
» show previous quotes 'Boris did beat the Labour candidate twice in London, a largely Labour city, in the Mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012, something Steve Norris and Zac Goldsmith could not do. In fact not even David Cameron could win London in 2010 or 2015 let alone Theresa May in 2017. Boris then effectively beat Cameron in the EU Referendum across the UK as de facto leader of the Leave campaign while Cameron led the Remain campaign'
But you are ignoring the context. His victory over Livingstone in May 2008 occurred when the Labour Government had become highly unpopular - very different to the polling background in 2004 and 2000. In 2012 Johnson's margin of victory was very narrow despite Livingstone by that time being widely perceived as 'Yesterday's man'.Had Labour offered a better candidate he almost certainly would have been defeated.
By 2004 Labour was pretty unpopular, just the Tories were still even more unpopular.
Even David Cameron could not win London in 2010 (post crash) despite Labour being even more unpopular than 2008 yet Boris did beat them in London that year.
Livingstone won the Labour nomination in 2012 because Labour had no other candidate better than him to offer and despite Ed Miliband winning most votes and seats nationally in the local elections that year Boris was re elected as the Tory Mayor in London, a huge personal endorsement for him.
Other Labour candidates would have beaten him in 2012.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
One has to be pretty ignornat - or naieve - to believe that the Callaghan Government was a socialist Government. It had no majority beyond the Autumn of 1976 and was effectively in hock to the financial markets. The nearest we have ever come to a Socialist Command economy was during World War 2 - indeed the electorate hated it so much they gave Attlee a landslide in the 1945 election.
One has to be pretty leftwing, as you clearly are, to believe the 1974-1979 government was not. Churchill's government did not nationalise industry, that was Attlee's government, nor did it have unions running out of control, that was the 1974-1979 government (a government which also raised the top income tax rate to effectively 98%), the WW2 government was a coalition government which had to spend heavily to fund an all out war effort to defeat Nazism.
» show previous quotes 'Boris did beat the Labour candidate twice in London, a largely Labour city, in the Mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012, something Steve Norris and Zac Goldsmith could not do. In fact not even David Cameron could win London in 2010 or 2015 let alone Theresa May in 2017. Boris then effectively beat Cameron in the EU Referendum across the UK as de facto leader of the Leave campaign while Cameron led the Remain campaign'
But you are ignoring the context. His victory over Livingstone in May 2008 occurred when the Labour Government had become highly unpopular - very different to the polling background in 2004 and 2000. In 2012 Johnson's margin of victory was very narrow despite Livingstone by that time being widely perceived as 'Yesterday's man'.Had Labour offered a better candidate he almost certainly would have been defeated.
By 2004 Labour was pretty unpopular, just the Tories were still even more unpopular.
Even David Cameron could not win London in 2010 (post crash) despite Labour being even more unpopular than 2008 yet Boris did beat them in London that year.
Livingstone won the Labour nomination in 2012 because Labour had no other candidate better than him to offer and despite Ed Miliband winning most votes and seats nationally in the local elections that year Boris was re elected as the Tory Mayor in London, a huge personal endorsement for him.
Other Labour candidates would have beaten him in 2012.
Name them then, Livingstone won 68% of the electoral college when he beat Oona King for the Labour nomination so Labour obviously decided he was the best candidate for them
If the student loan changes are as per the observer, then that's great news.
A threshold of £25k + rising with average earnings is far more reasonable than £21k frozen.
Lets see the details & whether or not it actually happens.
I'd still much rather the fees were abolished & 9% put on income tax over £25k for all.
But this is a positive move from May.
It's really expensive, though, which begs the question: Is austerity completely dead, or is Philip moving money around? Or are they going to restrict the number of students, or something?
I'm suspicious. If this unravels it could sink her.
Austerity has been dead since election night 2017, even Boris is now pushing public sector pay rises and fees obviously needed something done about them.
The Tories are also looking at reducing fees for courses with lower graduate earnings premiums which would be sensible
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories were back in power after 6 years, after 1964 after 6 years too and after 1974 after just 5 years. Only New Labour of postwar Labour governments lasted over a decade and Corbyn is no Attlee or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
Well the last pre-Blair Labour government of 1974-1979 had an effective top income tax rate of 98%, nationalised airlines, railways, utilities, BT and Royal Mail, inflation of 13% and rampant union militancy, socialism as far as I am concerned and as far as those who elected Thatcher in 1979 were concerned too
RPI inflation was 9.8% when Thatcher came to power in May 1979 - indeed the last full year of the Callaghan Government was 8.0%. In 1990 when she left Downing St RPI inflation was 9.3%.
Livingstone won the Labour nomination in 2012 because Labour had no other candidate better than him to offer and despite Ed Miliband winning most votes and seats nationally in the local elections that year Boris was re elected as the Tory Mayor in London, a huge personal endorsement for him.
Other Labour candidates would have beaten him in 2012.
Name them then, Livingstone won 68% of the electoral college when he beat Oona King for the Labour nomination so Labour obviously decided he was the best candidate for them
» show previous quotes 'Boris did beat the Labour candidate twice in London, a largely Labour city, in the Mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012, something Steve Norris and Zac Goldsmith could not do. In fact not even David Cameron could win London in 2010 or 2015 let alone Theresa May in 2017. Boris then effectively beat Cameron in the EU Referendum across the UK as de facto leader of the Leave campaign while Cameron led the Remain campaign'
But you are ignoring the context. His victory over Livingstone in May 2008 occurred when the Labour Government had become highly unpopular - very different to the polling background in 2004 and 2000. In 2012 Johnson's margin of victory was very narrow despite Livingstone by that time being widely perceived as 'Yesterday's man'.Had Labour offered a better candidate he almost certainly would have been defeated.
By 2004 Labour was pretty unpopular, just the Tories were still even more unpopular.
Even David Cameron could not win London in 2010 (post crash) despite Labour being even more unpopular than 2008 yet Boris did beat them in London that year.
Livingstone won the Labour nomination in 2012 because Labour had no other candidate better than him to offer and despite Ed Miliband winning most votes and seats nationally in the local elections that year Boris was re elected as the Tory Mayor in London, a huge personal endorsement for him.
Other Labour candidates would have beaten him in 2012.
Name them then, Livingstone won 68% of the electoral college when he beat Oona King for the Labour nomination so Labour obviously decided he was the best candidate for them
Labour may have selected the wrong candidate but that does not alter the fact that other candidates - such as Oona King and Tessa Jowell - would have beaten him!
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
Well the last pre-Blair Labour government of 1974-1979 had an effective top income tax rate of 98%, nationalised airlines, railways, utilities, BT and Royal Mail, inflation of 13% and rampant union militancy, socialism as far as I am concerned and as far as those who elected Thatcher in 1979 were concerned too
RPI inflation was 9.8% when Thatcher came to power in May 1979 - indeed the last full year of the Callaghan Government was 8.0%. In 1990 when she left Downing St RPI inflation was 9.3%.
Livingstone won the Labour nomination in 2012 because Labour had no other candidate better than him to offer and despite Ed Miliband winning most votes and seats nationally in the local elections that year Boris was re elected as the Tory Mayor in London, a huge personal endorsement for him.
Other Labour candidates would have beaten him in 2012.
Name them then, Livingstone won 68% of the electoral college when he beat Oona King for the Labour nomination so Labour obviously decided he was the best candidate for them
» show previous quotes 'Boris did beat the Labour candidate twice in London, a largely Labour city, in the Mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012, something Steve Norris and Zac Goldsmith could not do. In fact not even David Cameron could win London in 2010 or 2015 let alone Theresa May in 2017. Boris then effectively beat Cameron in the EU Referendum across the UK as de facto leader of the Leave campaign while Cameron led the Remain campaign'
But you are ignoring the context. His victory over Livingstone in May 2008 occurred when the Labour Government had become highly unpopular - very different to the polling background in 2004 and 2000. In 2012 Johnson's margin of victory was very narrow despite Livingstone by that time being widely perceived as 'Yesterday's man'.Had Labour offered a better candidate he almost certainly would have been defeated.
By 2004 Labour was pretty unpopular, just the Tories were still even more unpopular.
Even David Cameron could not win London in 2010 (post crash) despite Labour being even more unpopular than 2008 yet Boris did beat them in London that year.
Livingstone won the Labour nomination in 2012 because Labour had no other candidate better than him to offer and despite Ed Miliband winning most votes and seats nationally in the local elections that year Boris was re elected as the Tory Mayor in London, a huge personal endorsement for him.
Other Labour candidates would have beaten him in 2012.
Name them then, Livingstone won 68% of the electoral college when he beat Oona King for the Labour nomination so Labour obviously decided he was the best candidate for them
Labour may have selected the wrong candidate but that does not alter the fact that other candidates - such as Oona King and Tessa Jowell - would have beaten him!
Show me one poll that says that, you can't so tough
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
One has to be pretty ignornat - or naieve - to believe that the Callaghan Government was a socialist Government. It had no majority beyond the Autumn of 1976 and was effectively in hock to the financial markets. The nearest we have ever come to a Socialist Command economy was during World War 2 - indeed the electorate hated it so much they gave Attlee a landslide in the 1945 election.
One has to be pretty leftwing, as you clearly are, to believe the 1974-1979 government was not. Churchill's government did not nationalise industry, that was Attlee's government, nor did it have unions running out of control, that was the 1974-1979 government (a government which also raised the top income tax rate to effectively 98%), the WW2 government was a coalition government which had to spend heavily to fund an all out war effort to defeat Nazism.
The idea that 'unions running out of control' is evidence of a socialist government is just daft. On that basis, the Heath Government was more socialist than its Wilson/Callaghan successor in that there was far more industrial strife in the early to mid 1970s than in the period following March 1974. There was actually relatively little industrial action in the latter years until the Ford Motor Strike of October 1978 which was then followed by the Winter of Discontent..
Anyway, it looks like May is a goner and in the absence of an obvious alternative, Johnson has to be the front runner, despite the lack of any qualification for the job in terms of competence, track record, leadership, direction or moral authority. Astonishingly even Corbyn has more going for him. We live in interesting times.
True, funny and ultimately depressing all at the same time.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
It is not about falling or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
Well the last pre-Blair Labour government of 1974-1979 had an effective top income tax rate of 98%, nationalised airlines, railways, utilities, BT and Royal Mail, inflation of 13% and rampant union militancy, socialism as far as I am concerned and as far as those who elected Thatcher in 1979 were concerned too
RPI inflation was 9.8% when Thatcher came to power in May 1979 - indeed the last full year of the Callaghan Government was 8.0%. In 1990 when she left Downing St RPI inflation was 9.3%.
UK gdp per capita was one of the lowest in western Europe in 1979, by 1990 it was one of the highest
Inflation was NOT 13% in May 1979 - you simply highlight your ignorance in suggesting that. RPI inflation rose very sharply in the second half of 1979 and to a significant extent - though not entirely - was due to Geoffrey Howe's first Budget in June that year when VAT was raised from 8% to 15% and the Public Utilities were forced to very sharply increase their prices to consumers.The headline rate of inflation rose very rapidly and by Spring 1980 we faced RPI inflation of 22% compared with the 9.8% inherited by Thatcher.
Yes, but if the Tories think the voters will gratefully fall automatically back into their lap after a few years of Corbyn, then they are also making a mistake.
Vision. Respect. Patience. Argument from first principles. Showing their means are the only way to achieve better ends. Optimism. Right tone, and language. Stamina. Resilience.
This is the approach needed.
It is not about falling gracefully into their lap, the high taxes, nationalisations and appalling service, endless strikes and falling prosperity and rising prices would do it for them regardless of what the Tories do.
Even after 1945 the Tories or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
One has to be pretty ignornat - or naieve - to believe that the Callaghan Government was a socialist Government. It had no majority beyond the Autumn of 1976 and was effectively in hock to the financial markets. The nearest we have ever come to a Socialist Command economy was during World War 2 - indeed the electorate hated it so much they gave Attlee a landslide in the 1945 election.
One has to be pretty leftwing, as you clearly are, to believe the 1974-1979 government was not. Churchill's government did not nationalise industry, that was Attlee's government, nor did it have unions running out of control, The idea that 'unions running out of control' is evidence of a socialist government is just daft. On that basis, the Heath Government was more socialist than its Wilson/Callaghan successor in that there was far more industrial strife in the early to mid 1970s than in the period following March 1974. There was actually relatively little industrial action in the latter years until the Ford Motor Strike of October 1978 which was then followed by the Winter of Discontent..
I am not going to defend the Heath government who tried and failed to tackle the unions (and still had a lower top income tax rate than the successor Labour government). It of course took Thatcher to bring the unions under control
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
It is not about falling or Wilson
Yes, you always have an answer to whatever anyone is saying but listen to what I'm saying, man.
Complacency has already brought us to the brink, and will end up killing us.
We must march to the sound of the guns and publicly win the arguments in theological combat.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
Well the last pre-Blair Labour government o
RPI inflation was 9.8% when Thatcher came to power in May 1979 - indeed the last full year of the Callaghan Government was 8.0%. In 1990 when she left Downing St RPI inflation was 9.3%.
UK gdp per capita was one of the lowest in western Europe in 1979, by 1990 it was one of the highest
Inflation was NOT 13% in May 1979 - you simply highlight your ignorance in suggesting that. RPI inflation rose very sharply in the second half of 1979 and to a significant extent - though not entirely - was due to Geoffrey Howe's first Budget in June that year when VAT was raised from 8% to 15% and the Public Utilities were forced to very sharply increase their prices to consumers.The headline rate of inflation rose very rapidly and by Spring 1980 we faced RPI inflation of 22% compared with the 9.8% inherited by Thatcher.
You once again display your left-wing bias. As the chart I posted clearly shows inflation was at 13% in 1979 which the successor Tory government had got down to just 6% by 1991. Thatcher got it down as low as 4% by 1986 although it rose a little again by 1990 it had fallen again by 1991
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
.
I don't doubt it but until people actually experience socialism they are unlikely to be as opposed to it and almost nobody under 40 has experienced socialism in the UK in any real form
I'm well over 40 but I don't recall experiencing socialism in the UK?
Well the last pre-Blair Labour government of 1974-1979 had an effective top income tax rate of 98%, nationalised airlines, railways, utilities, BT and Royal Mail, inflation of 13% and rampant union militancy, socialism as far as I am concerned and as far as those who elected Thatcher in 1979 were concerned too
RPI inflation was 9.8% when Thatcher came to power in May 1979 - indeed the last full year of the Callaghan Government was 8.0%. In 1990 when she left Downing St RPI inflation was 9.3%.
UK gdp per capita was one of the lowest in western Europe in 1979, by 1990 it was one of the highest
Inflation was NOT 13% in May 1979 - you simply highlight your ignorance in suggesting that. RPI inflation rose very sharply in the second half of 1979 and to a significant extent - though not entirely - was due to Geoffrey Howe's first Budget in June that year when VAT was raised from 8% to 15% and the Public Utilities were forced to very sharply increase their prices to consumers.The headline rate of inflation rose very rapidly and by Spring 1980 we faced RPI inflation of 22% compared with the 9.8% inherited by Thatcher.
You once again display your left-wing bias. As the chart I posted clearly shows inflation was at 13% in 1979 which the successor Tory government had got down to just 6% by 1991
No - I am referring you to facts which you choose to ignore. I am trained in economics though you provide very little evidence from your own comments of having the same background.
I have just researched the RPI data for 1990 which reveals that RPI inflation for November 1990 was 9.7% - barely changed from the 9.9% Thatcher inherited 11.5 years earlier.
I have just researched the RPI data for 1990 which reveals that RPI inflation for November 1990 was 9.7% - barely changed from the 9.9% Thatcher inherited 11.5 years earlier.
Taxing peoples income to guarantee newbuild mortgages for those at the bottom of the housing ladder, leaving the taxpayer seriously on the hook if the market falls?
Silly.
Not quite as silly as the H2B2 generalised mortage guarantee scheme. That was proper bonkers.
But the help to buy/sell policy extension is still a bad move.
Just borrow a trillion quid, CPO a pile of greenbelt, use half of it to build a million quality council houses and auction the other half to builders, with some decent infrastructure thrown in.
By 2022 the housing crisis would be far less of a crisis.
The only advantage to Boris is that he'll actually fight the stupid communists instead of ceding all the political and intellectual arguments to them - although I did appreciate May's recent defence of capitalism.
But keeping Labour out for 5 years is far more important that who leads the Tory Party.
The Tories have a choice, either go all out to beat Corbyn at the price of a decade or more out of power in all probability once a post Corbyn Labour Party comes to its senses, or lose to Corbyn and have a real chance of being back after 1 term after the complete mess he and McDonnell will make of the economy.
I hope for the country's sake they remain focused on the former
Absolutely - I'd rather have 20 years of Tony Blair than a single term of Corbyn.
As I've been saying for months TMay should have going in the weekend after the election. Since the exit poll her position has been untenable. The media is simply reflecting this fact.
Absolutely. Should have walked, but was clearly in shock. No one pushed because they were cowards and know the first person to challenge rarely wins the prize. Hard to hold this excuse for a government in more contempt.
They deserve a stint on the opposition benches.
After just winning an election?
Stop being so blindly partisan and have a bit of respect for democracy
But she didn't win the election. If so why are we bribing the DUP with a billion quid?
As is pretty well established no one one outright, but she led the most popular single party at the election. She went backwards, but still has a better claim to have won than anyone else, since merely moving forward but still being behind your rivals has even less of a claim. Of course, in terms of future prospects only one side looks like a winner.
Imagine a little game.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
The person wot drew £310 of course. He has more money than you.
Comments
It rarely seems to actually impact on anything....
I mourn your Twitter feed, which is bereft of the serious, sober and objective analysis you were once renowned and respected for. Now, it's just a desperate 24/7 "has public opinion moved yet?" pollwatch from a Remainer in denial.
Sad.
I have been doing my own pension sums recently, so looking at the options.
b) No pensioner has any right to complain about anything being unfair given from how much they've unfairly benefited from various things through their time.
c) Don't see why not.
The UK university system is expensive. However, when lists of the top 50 or 100 world Universities are produced, there are many more UK universities than French or German ones in the list.
It is also the case that many in France, for example, go to the local University, so their living costs are also reduced in comparison to UK students.
A more rational approach would be to extend NI beyond retirement, so it is payable by all, or absorb it into income tax. This would raise more money, and not just create disincentives to save. It also has the advantage of simplicty and harder for accountants to dodge.
Students get a raw deal I do not doubt. The route cause is the insane idea introduce by Blair of sending 40-50% to uni. All else on student funding flows from that. I thought it was nuts then, I think it's nuts now, but you'd deprive me of my state pension nevertheless?
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.
I agree that the whole 40-50% of people going to uni is wrong, and I'm definitely not a fan of Corbyn by any measure, but at least at the moment he's talking to us.'
I would pay fees for doctors, teachers, scientists and engineers subject to a period of up to 10 years working in the UK on a sliding scale if they left earlier
I have no idea why nurses need degrees and many other courses could be reduced to 2 years
There is an indication tonight that TM will bring back maintenance allowances
There is a need for courses to have more contact time and to be more rigorous. Currently undergraduate teaching is a subsidy and annoyance to academic staff. Career progression is all about publications and grants, not teaching.
Nothing wrong with 50% plus going to university at all. There is no magical difference in what you learn at university. More specialisation and more depth.
Fed up with failure pb.com editors who want Jeremy Corbyn to be PM!
Mike S and TSE this means you!
I am the last of the sensible CON posters here and announce that I am leaving this site with immediate effect.
LOL can't even get past Watford in the Premier League
Merging it with income tax makes sense as it simplifies collection. It may need a newer lower band as the NI threshold is lower than for Income tax.
I still cannot get over when it was said he was being unlawfully detained. The first time someone had managed it without being detained, I should think.
I have £230 you have £320. We stick it all in a bag and mix it up.
I draw £260, you draw £310
Who won the game?
Osborne et al designed the plan2 student loans as a very interesting - and very market friendly financial product. They're actually pretty clever.
They get grouped together and graded into prime/subprime batches and sold at whatever price the market bids for them.
The repayment threshold - and whether it is inflation/earnings linked - is one of the crucial factors determining their value to investors, and how much the exchequer gets back from the sale.
They're never going to be worth face value, but the future potential discount rate shrank significantly, with Osbornes little accounting trick back in 2015.
IIRC, IFS put the loss to plan2 graduates at £3k average across the governments whole book - or £6k for the median earning graduate.
It'll be interesting to see how the figures change if May does up the threshold to £25k. I'm not buying the government spin/figures until I've seen the details.
The tories have lied to kids about SL's before.
In reality, it was announced piecemeal whenever EdM's polling rose during the 2015 campaign. Remember?
7 day NHS, free all day childcare for all toddlers etc etc.
The plan was to blame the LD's when the insane unfunded promises got ditched during the coalition V.2 negotiations.
They ended up winning a bloody majority, didn't they? So Osborne dug deep into the student loan t&c's to find his cash.
Sounds serious...
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/09/2018-shaping-up-big-for-democrats.html
Interestingly the same poll has Sanders leading Trump in a hypothetical 2020 poll by 11% and Biden leading Trump by 13% and Warren leading Trump by 6%. Hillary Clinton led Trump by 5% as a baseline for comparison
http://wapo.st/2xvmxgM
The loyal, Europhile Spanish government denies to give the Catalans their say in whether to become independent or not.
I think they're really unfair.
"leader on the verge of a nervous breakdown" FFS
It's not nice watching her enemies go in for the kill.
Now as it happens I disagree with the majority view on immigration. But what I won't do is what Chris does which is to brand anyone who is opposed to immigration as racist. I see the benefits of migration and others do not. I happen to be in the minority but I respect other people's views. Chris A never has and apparently never will. That is an observation based on many years of his comments on here. So I stand by my comment that his views are both bigoted and moronic.
After a 40-minute discussion during which he lamented the way the last campaign had focused too much on Brexit and May herself, Javid laughed when asked the question, then stood up and declared: “I think we are out of time.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/theresa-may-survival-sajid-javid-tories-knives
HYUFD said:
» show previous quotes
'Boris did beat the Labour candidate twice in London, a largely Labour city, in the Mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012, something Steve Norris and Zac Goldsmith could not do. In fact not even David Cameron could win London in 2010 or 2015 let alone Theresa May in 2017. Boris then effectively beat Cameron in the EU Referendum across the UK as de facto leader of the Leave campaign while Cameron led the Remain campaign'
But you are ignoring the context. His victory over Livingstone in May 2008 occurred when the Labour Government had become highly unpopular - very different to the polling background in 2004 and 2000. In 2012 Johnson's margin of victory was very narrow despite Livingstone by that time being widely perceived as 'Yesterday's man'.Had Labour offered a better candidate he almost certainly would have been defeated.
Even David Cameron could not win London in 2010 (post crash) despite Labour being even more unpopular than 2008 yet Boris did beat them in London that year.
Livingstone won the Labour nomination in 2012 because Labour had no other candidate better than him to offer and despite Ed Miliband winning most votes and seats nationally in the local elections that year Boris was re elected as the Tory Mayor in London, a huge personal endorsement for him.
A threshold of £25k + rising with average earnings is far more reasonable than £21k frozen.
Lets see the details & whether or not it actually happens.
I'd still much rather the fees were abolished & 9% put on income tax over £25k for all.
But this is a positive move from May.
It's really expensive, though, which begs the question: Is austerity completely dead, or is Philip moving money around? Or are they going to restrict the number of students, or something?
I'm suspicious. If this unravels it could sink her.
The Tories are also looking at reducing fees for courses with lower graduate earnings premiums which would be sensible
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=5YjzeZ+4&id=0D50277A90873032DC760A4A2A31D064B558DC94&thid=OIP.5YjzeZ-41Ic3BLr2Feb6tgEqDR&q=inflation+1979+uk&simid=607994867830754657&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0
UK gdp per capita was one of the lowest in western Europe in 1979, by 1990 it was one of the highest
Taxing peoples income to guarantee newbuild mortgages for those at the bottom of the housing ladder, leaving the taxpayer seriously on the hook if the market falls?
Silly.
Not quite as silly as the H2B2 generalised mortage guarantee scheme. That was proper bonkers.
But the help to buy/sell policy extension is still a bad move.
Just borrow a trillion quid, CPO a pile of greenbelt, use half of it to build a million quality council houses and auction the other half to builders, with some decent infrastructure thrown in.
By 2022 the housing crisis would be far less of a crisis.