In the last half century ? Ken Clarke, by a country mile.
Agree 1 million per cent.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
Just noted the latest Missouri poll from Trafalgar giving Trump a 52-41 advantage. Trump won 57-38 last time so that's a 4% swing so well in line with other state polls outside the battleground states.
Biden is building a lead in his strongholds and making a small dent in the Republican strongholds but in the key Midwest and southern marginal states he isn't doing quite as well. The swings there are more like 2-3% rather than the 4-6% seen elsewhere.
However Texas, NC and Georgia have come into play, still leaning for him but he will need to put resources into States he likely didn't want to.
You would know better than me but could it be that soldiers have a touch of contempt for flabby old blokes who could not fight their way out of a paper bag but act and talk as if they are Rambo?
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
Four years of the same sort of chaos but with what consequence in 2024 ?
If the pendulum continues its normal swing then a radical leftist Dem win in 2024 would be possible.
If the Dems don't win with a centrist (like Romney didn't win in 2012), they will probably try with someone from the left of the party in 2024.
That's probably another good reason to hope for a democrat win this year.
It's not a sentiment I share but this is also one of the reasons why - whether admitted to or not - there are people on the left who are rooting for Biden to lose.
You would know better than me but could it be that soldiers have a touch of contempt for flabby old blokes who could not fight their way out of a paper bag but act and talk as if they are Rambo?
Not to mention draft dodgers who sneer at former servicemen who were captured and tortured by the Viet Cong.
Basically US intelligence have evidence of Russians offering bounties on US troops for the Taliban. The Trump administration have so far not condemned the Russian government, that cannot have gone down well within the US military, as seen by numerous retired generals state they will not vote for Trump.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
Sunak has the potential to be a great PM but I agree that he has a lot of learning and growing to do first.
It's depressing how far away the other options in the cabinet are. In Thatcher's first government you had Howe, Carrington, Pym, Lawson, Whitelaw, Brittan, Prior, Tebbit and Clarke. Not all from the top drawer but would have done at a pinch.
I suspect the news of bounties on US troops has not gone down so well.
Yes. Treating John McCain like a piece of shit probably didn't help. “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
Basically US intelligence have evidence of Russians offering bounties on US troops for the Taliban. The Trump administration have so far not condemned the Russian government, that cannot have gone down well within the US military, as seen by numerous retired generals state they will not vote for Trump.
Just noted the latest Missouri poll from Trafalgar giving Trump a 52-41 advantage. Trump won 57-38 last time so that's a 4% swing so well in line with other state polls outside the battleground states.
Biden is building a lead in his strongholds and making a small dent in the Republican strongholds but in the key Midwest and southern marginal states he isn't doing quite as well. The swings there are more like 2-3% rather than the 4-6% seen elsewhere.
However Texas, NC and Georgia have come into play, still leaning for him but he will need to put resources into States he likely didn't want to.
Agreed. The size of the Trump win in the Electoral College in 2016 masks the fragility of that success.
Trump won 306-232. With a swing of barely 1%, Biden picks up Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida and their 55 ECVs and wins 287-251.
Relatively small wins in the popular vote can become big wins in the Electoral College - in 2012 Obama beat Romney 51-47 but won the EC 332-206. In 1988 Bush beat Dukakis 53-46 but won the EC 426-112.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
Osborne and Miliband (plus Balls and Portillo) were tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You would know better than me but could it be that soldiers have a touch of contempt for flabby old blokes who could not fight their way out of a paper bag but act and talk as if they are Rambo?
Not to mention draft dodgers who sneer at former servicemen who were captured and tortured by the Viet Cong.
Yes. That was disgusting. It's in my top 5 Trump abominations which is a super tough competition.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
Osborne and Miliband (plus Balls and Portillo) were tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And didn't shape up.
Nigel Lawson is a possible contender.
As are John Reid and George Robertson.
John "won't fire a shot in anger" Reid and George "devolution will kill nationalism stone dead" Robertson? You're having a laugh.
You would know better than me but could it be that soldiers have a touch of contempt for flabby old blokes who could not fight their way out of a paper bag but act and talk as if they are Rambo?
Not to mention draft dodgers who sneer at former servicemen who were captured and tortured by the Viet Cong.
Yes. That was disgusting. It's in my top 5 Trump abominations which is a super tough competition.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
Osborne and Miliband (plus Balls and Portillo) were tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And didn't shape up.
Nigel Lawson is a possible contender.
As are John Reid and George Robertson.
John "won't fire a shot in anger" Reid and George "devolution will kill nationalism stone dead" Robertson? You're having a laugh.
The more you look at the details of their records the most crap they appear
Both had a certain level of SLAB gravitas which impressed at that time.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
Sorry found that figure (it misses out oap housing benefit)
It's worth saying that cost have roughly doubled since the early 1990s, after adjusting for inflation due to reduction in social housing with the increase in costs due to private landlords.
So once again yep that's an area where costs could be cut - just build homes...
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
Osborne and Miliband (plus Balls and Portillo) were tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And didn't shape up.
Nigel Lawson is a possible contender.
As are John Reid and George Robertson.
John "won't fire a shot in anger" Reid and George "devolution will kill nationalism stone dead" Robertson? You're having a laugh.
The more you look at the details of their records the most crap they appear
Both had a certain level of SLAB gravitas which impressed at that time.
Its all that Gordon had in retrospect.
Cook, Straw, Mandelson and Blunkett were all better without being great and that's just in Blair's first cabinet.
Some people on twitter (Lionel Barber, and Andrew Neil) are lionising this speech by Democrat John Deberry as to what the democrats should have been saying all along.
Alas they weren't. And they still aren't.
Doubtless the modern democrats would call him an uncle Tom. I think he should be their candidate.
You would know better than me but could it be that soldiers have a touch of contempt for flabby old blokes who could not fight their way out of a paper bag but act and talk as if they are Rambo?
Not to mention draft dodgers who sneer at former servicemen who were captured and tortured by the Viet Cong.
Yes. That was disgusting. It's in my top 5 Trump abominations which is a super tough competition.
I'm amazed you've kept track. Gave up long ago.
Don't blame you but that is why I have to. For posterity.
Here's my second to top 5 as per my current records -
6. George would be celebrating this great day for our country. 7. There are good people on both sides. 8. Vladimir told me he didn't do it and that's good enough for me. 9. If they don't like America they should go back to where they came from. 10. And disinfectant. That kills it in a minute.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
David Miliband was a disastrous Foreign Secretary.
Those who cite his term as Foreign Secretary as reason for saying Boris would be a terrible PM should at least be consistent.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
Gardiner?
Good God, no.
Ok. As I thought. A Gardinerphobe. You are probably in the majority tbf.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
Sorry found that figure (it misses out oap housing benefit)
It's worth saying that cost have roughly doubled since the early 1990s, after adjusting for inflation due to reduction in social housing with the increase in costs due to private landlords.
So once again yep that's an area where costs could be cut - just build homes...
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
Some people on twitter (Lionel Barber, and Andrew Neil) are lionising this speech by Democrat John Deberry as to what the democrats should have been saying all along.
Alas they weren't. And they still aren't.
Doubtless the modern democrats would call him an uncle Tom. I think he should be their candidate.
There are those who would counter by arguing where has 60 years of "peaceful" protest got Black Americans? There are still too many examples of Police brutality and actions taken by Police against black men which would never be taken against white men.
Yes, in many respects black Americans have made huge strides - economically, many have levels of prosperity and freedom unknown to their grandparents and it is so much better than it was but it is still not as good as it could or should be.
There comes a point when those who advocate a peaceful and dignified response to institutional racism or terror or state oppression have to contend with the unpalatable truth they are not making progress and the siren voices advocating a more violent response get heard.
It's the same whether it is a protest against Police violence in Wisconsin or electoral fraud in Minsk.
I suspect the news of bounties on US troops has not gone down so well.
Yes. Treating John McCain like a piece of shit probably didn't help. “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
Yes John Mcain was a great man in my opinion would have made a good president. Trump to have sullied his name is a very low moment.
Some people on twitter (Lionel Barber, and Andrew Neil) are lionising this speech by Democrat John Deberry as to what the democrats should have been saying all along.
Alas they weren't. And they still aren't.
Doubtless the modern democrats would call him an uncle Tom. I think he should be their candidate.
That’s a good speech, positive and forward-looking.
What about The Trafalgar Group, they were more right than anyone else last time, they have Trump leading in Michigan and Wisconsin.
LOL
Absolutely.
Just because they were right last time doesn't mean they will be right this time. They son't easily publish their crosstabs so we can't see their sampling methodology and compare it to other pollsters.
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Betfair Exachnge " Will Next President Lose Popular Vote?" is a massive mis price based on the candidates prices?
Have I fucked up the calculations?
Lay Trump, back Yes seems like a great Arb opportunity to me?
I'm guessing whatever Trump whale is trying to make it look like a tight contest has ignored that market.
I've done that. You can lose both but it's a tiny risk.
Similar thinking - the Dems to win the WH but lose Florida. Does not quite work at current prices but worth monitoring.
It's Bank holiday so I may being thick, but how is this (POTUS and the popular vote) an arb opportunity if there is a tiny risk of losing?
The Democrats stack up millions upon millions of wasted votes in California and New York. Which means the chances of a Republican candidate winning the White House while losing the national vote is very high.
Electoral Kindergarten - an outdated, unfair, crappy system for national vote losers!
Some people on twitter (Lionel Barber, and Andrew Neil) are lionising this speech by Democrat John Deberry as to what the democrats should have been saying all along.
Alas they weren't. And they still aren't.
Doubtless the modern democrats would call him an uncle Tom. I think he should be their candidate.
There are those who would counter by arguing where has 60 years of "peaceful" protest got Black Americans? There are still too many examples of Police brutality and actions taken by Police against black men which would never be taken against white men.
Yes, in many respects black Americans have made huge strides - economically, many have levels of prosperity and freedom unknown to their grandparents and it is so much better than it was but it is still not as good as it could or should be.
There comes a point when those who advocate a peaceful and dignified response to institutional racism or terror or state oppression have to contend with the unpalatable truth they are not making progress and the siren voices advocating a more violent response get heard.
It's the same whether it is a protest against Police violence in Wisconsin or electoral fraud in Minsk.
You answered your own question. They have made huge strides. Hell, they got a black president.
That guy was president for eight years. Its funny how he never got any criticism for the oppression of black people that you claim has been going on for sixty, including his own tenure. Not a word. Black lives sure didn't matter then.
Why? because BLM is not about Black Lives Mattering whatsoever. Its nothing to do with that. Its a about a mainly white liberal elite not getting their own way for once.
They cannot abide the man in their way, or the voters in their way. They hate and despise them, and want them gone.
At which point black people can go back to rotting away in democrat run administrations like they have in every democrat administration in the last 60 years.
Why, precisely, are you against chlorinated chicken? ( I presume chlorine washed is what we're talking about)
Are you against salt? Swimming pools? The periodic table?
"There was me, that is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, and my three droogs, that is Priti, Govey, and Dom, and we sat in the Kensington Milkbar trying to make up our Rishioodocks what to do with the evening. The Kensington Milkbar sold Milk-plus, milk plus Corn Syrup or GM Soya or Chlorinated Chicken, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old No-Deal Brexit!"
What about The Trafalgar Group, they were more right than anyone else last time, they have Trump leading in Michigan and Wisconsin.
They are important to pay attention to but they don't release full tables and they predicted blowouts in 2018 that didn't materialise (they said Kemp would win by 12 in Georgia, he won by 1.4)
What about The Trafalgar Group, they were more right than anyone else last time, they have Trump leading in Michigan and Wisconsin.
LOL
Absolutely.
Just because they were right last time doesn't mean they will be right this time. They son't easily publish their crosstabs so we can't see their sampling methodology and compare it to other pollsters.
I am not laughing at that. I am laughing at the fact that in certain quarters on here Trump favourable polls do not exist. Because 'crosstabs'
They are like the eponymous hero in the Scottish play. The Witches of the Biden plus polls told them it couldn't happen. It couldn;t
What about The Trafalgar Group, they were more right than anyone else last time, they have Trump leading in Michigan and Wisconsin.
LOL
Absolutely.
Just because they were right last time doesn't mean they will be right this time. They son't easily publish their crosstabs so we can't see their sampling methodology and compare it to other pollsters.
There really needs to be an American Polling Council.
Too many polls commissioned by people with an agenda to push, and too little of the scientific side of the process published for independent scrutiny.
What about The Trafalgar Group, they were more right than anyone else last time, they have Trump leading in Michigan and Wisconsin.
LOL
Absolutely.
Just because they were right last time doesn't mean they will be right this time. They son't easily publish their crosstabs so we can't see their sampling methodology and compare it to other pollsters.
I am not laughing at that. I am laughing at the fact that in certain quarters on here Trump favourable polls do not exist. Because 'crosstabs'
They are like the eponymous hero in the Scottish play. The Witches of the Biden plus polls told them it couldn't happen. It couldn;t
But that old wood is moving, all the same.
They predicted a 5 point win for Trump in Nevada. Remind me how that went?
If they released crosstabs we would have an idea of why they got the Rust Belt right and Nevada wrong. Or why they thought Cruz would smash O'Rourke but instead only squeaked by.
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
If Labour had any sense, they’d back the proposals and see the Tories totally split on the issue.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
The director of CCAES, Fernando Simón, has recognized that, although "most of the PCRs" are carried out in Spain in areas of outbreaks and high probability of finding infections, "that does not mean that everything is due to a greater effort There is an increase in transmission "which is reflected in the gradual increase in hospitalizations. In this sense, the epidemiologist has detailed that as of August 30 there are 6,957 hospitalized by coronavirus, 6% of the total hospital capacity of the country. However, this percentage varies by autonomous community, with 16% in progressive growth in Madrid, or 13% in Aragon, up to 4% of hospital occupancy in Navarra and the Valencian Community or Extremadura, with 2%.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
What about The Trafalgar Group, they were more right than anyone else last time, they have Trump leading in Michigan and Wisconsin.
LOL
Absolutely.
Just because they were right last time doesn't mean they will be right this time. They son't easily publish their crosstabs so we can't see their sampling methodology and compare it to other pollsters.
There really needs to be an American Polling Council.
Too many polls commissioned by people with an agenda to push, and too little of the scientific side of the process published for independent scrutiny.
Amen. So why do it. Its a gut election. Go with your gut. They all are, really.
In the last half century ? Ken Clarke, by a country mile.
Agree 1 million per cent.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
Miliband and Cooper would have been terrible. Balls would have been good although he’s much better as an ex politician than he was
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
Yep trouble is the last thing nimbys want is social housing near them which is what really does need to be built to solve the social / housing benefit bill issue.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
And once you introduce rollover relief (as you need to) the amount of money raised would make it pointless.
If you need to tax housing you really do need a land tax (and yes I know that has problems) but it's just about the sanest approach you there is to tax wealth in a collectable way.
The best PM the country never had is a bit of a odd contest given that to be a good PM the first task is to win an election . If you are not popular (enough to win an election or even party leadership) then you are almost by definition not a good PM material. If the contest is who could run the country (who never had a chance) that is a different question and the answer is likely to be a list of people ,many of whom were never politicians. Its easier in sport as there is a defined skill that can be more or less measured - ie the best snooker player never to win a WC is probably Jimmy White etc
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
David Miliband was a disastrous Foreign Secretary.
Those who cite his term as Foreign Secretary as reason for saying Boris would be a terrible PM should at least be consistent.
It seems easily forgotten on PB how much Ed Balls was despised by 2015.
Subsequent baking and dancing does not create a political titan.
Also forgotten, how admired Cameron and Osborne were at the time (pretty sure not by you i hasten to add!).
I still admire Cameron and I respected Osborne as a strategist and no.2.
But I didn't believe Osborne would have been a good PM. He was personally very confident but I didn't share his Uber modernisation beliefs (the Tories were just his football team) and he had a rather nasty streak to him.
Further, he didn't really do human: everyone and everything in politics was a chess piece to him.
Some people on twitter (Lionel Barber, and Andrew Neil) are lionising this speech by Democrat John Deberry as to what the democrats should have been saying all along.
Alas they weren't. And they still aren't.
Doubtless the modern democrats would call him an uncle Tom. I think he should be their candidate.
There are those who would counter by arguing where has 60 years of "peaceful" protest got Black Americans? There are still too many examples of Police brutality and actions taken by Police against black men which would never be taken against white men.
Yes, in many respects black Americans have made huge strides - economically, many have levels of prosperity and freedom unknown to their grandparents and it is so much better than it was but it is still not as good as it could or should be.
There comes a point when those who advocate a peaceful and dignified response to institutional racism or terror or state oppression have to contend with the unpalatable truth they are not making progress and the siren voices advocating a more violent response get heard.
It's the same whether it is a protest against Police violence in Wisconsin or electoral fraud in Minsk.
You answered your own question. They have made huge strides. Hell, they got a black president.
That guy was president for eight years. Its funny how he never got any criticism for the oppression of black people that you claim has been going on for sixty, including his own tenure. Not a word. Black lives sure didn't matter then.
Why? because BLM is not about Black Lives Mattering whatsoever. Its nothing to do with that. Its a about a mainly white liberal elite not getting their own way for once.
They cannot abide the man in their way, or the voters in their way. They hate and despise them, and want them gone.
At which point black people can go back to rotting away in democrat run administrations like they have in every democrat administration in the last 60 years.
I don't agree with all of your post but there's a lot of truth in that.
interesting thought on the covid-19 fiscal disaster . I have spent about £10 today (on discretionary things ) - not huge but enough to do the things I wanted ( a round of 9 hole golf and a macdonalds ) . The government (just today) has spent above what is it collecting in tax the equivalent of £10 off every single man woman and child in the UK. It is doing this every day as well. It cannot go on
You would know better than me but could it be that soldiers have a touch of contempt for flabby old blokes who could not fight their way out of a paper bag but act and talk as if they are Rambo?
That's no way to talk about the draftdodger-in-chief.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
Besides, CGT applied in that fashion will also cricket bat old people looking to downsize and/or go to Devon to die.
Rule no.1: we do not ask old people to pay for stuff. It's never going to happen.
Yep trouble is the last thing nimbys want is social housing near them which is what really does need to be built to solve the social / housing benefit bill issue.
People don't want the new houses near them full stop. We've got a situation like that here, which has been dragging on to the south of town now for years. Developer has bought up a couple of farmers fields and wants to plonk 99 new homes on them. The fields are on high ground so not a flood risk, they don't affect any protected landscapes or views, and the land has zero archaeological or wildlife value. I run past that way sometimes, and it's scrubby crap that doesn't even look like it's much good for growing anything. The development is modest so it won't put any serious pressure on local public services either.
The simple truth is that the locals don't want it because there'll be a bit of noise and disruption whilst the development is being built, a few of them will find the homes appearing near the bottom of their back gardens, and they'll have to put up with some extra cars on the roads when it's finished. And you're going to have those kinds of problems anywhere that you build houses.
The country is desperately short of homes, and in particular homes in the parts of it where people actually want to live, and the population is still increasing relentlessly: growth was at its slowest rate in 15 years last year, but the 2019 mid-year estimates still showed that there were more than 300,000 additional people living in England that June than there were twelve months previously. That's another 125,000 new homes needed to cope with them, never mind the huge historical backlog.
I'm prepared to entertain the argument that improvements need to be made to the zonal development proposals, but not that fundamental reform isn't required. If we have local communities fighting every little cluster of 50 or 100 homes here, there and everywhere through the existing planning system for years then it'll be impossible ever to provide all the dwellings that are required.
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
I must say I don't really understand the reforms.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
I must say I don't really understand the reforms.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
Arguably a vast improvement on the present situation, where almost 100% of the country is "protected" - by Nimbies.
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
I must say I don't really understand the reforms.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
The intention is to enable a planning free for all outside those limited areas designated as “protected”.
This despite the huge number of unimplemented permissions and clear evidence that developers sit on both permissions and land to ensure that prices remain high.
The Tory party will surely fold on the reforms, faced with backbench MPs up in arms and myriad Tory councillors looking at losing their seats.
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
I must say I don't really understand the reforms.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
Arguably a vast improvement on the present situation, where almost 100% of the country is "protected" - by Nimbies.
I am not sure that it is. In my village, the village plan included quite a lot of new housing, probably an increase of 50% over the next five years including quite a bit of social housing. There was a general recognition of the need to keep the village viable for younger families, and support the village school and sporting teams. It just required agreed development in suitable spots with good road access etc. The village plan was voted through in a referendum by an overwhelming majority.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Hunt, the man whilst Minister for Health tried to get the NHS segment of the 2012 Opening Ceremony deleted or severely edited out, who was only thwarted when Danny Boyle threatened to resign and take all his volunteers with him.
Comments
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
Plus @glw who has he fallen out with?
That's probably another good reason to hope for a democrat win this year.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
Basically US intelligence have evidence of Russians offering bounties on US troops for the Taliban. The Trump administration have so far not condemned the Russian government, that cannot have gone down well within the US military, as seen by numerous retired generals state they will not vote for Trump.
It's depressing how far away the other options in the cabinet are. In Thatcher's first government you had Howe, Carrington, Pym, Lawson, Whitelaw, Brittan, Prior, Tebbit and Clarke. Not all from the top drawer but would have done at a pinch.
“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
Trump won 306-232. With a swing of barely 1%, Biden picks up Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida and their 55 ECVs and wins 287-251.
Relatively small wins in the popular vote can become big wins in the Electoral College - in 2012 Obama beat Romney 51-47 but won the EC 332-206. In 1988 Bush beat Dukakis 53-46 but won the EC 426-112.
And didn't shape up.
Nigel Lawson is a possible contender.
As are John Reid and George Robertson.
Ed Balls
John Smith
Roy Jenkins
Douglas Hurd
Chris Patten
And funnily enough Eden at the right time and without his crippling illness.
He was a broken reed by 1955.
The Conservative offering of politicians for the leadership in the 1970s was a depressing one, which might explain why Thatcher won.
Here's a photo of a Brixton polling station ...
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
The first two, tragically, lost their chances to show their mettle by their premature and unexpected deaths.
I think his 2001 defeat finished off his confidence. I think he's far more sensitive than is commonly believed.
Subsequent baking and dancing does not create a political titan.
Both had a certain level of SLAB gravitas which impressed at that time.
Its all that Gordon had in retrospect.
J R Clynes as well. More so than Henderson, I would say.
It's worth saying that cost have roughly doubled since the early 1990s, after adjusting for inflation due to reduction in social housing with the increase in costs due to private landlords.
So once again yep that's an area where costs could be cut - just build homes...
Some people on twitter (Lionel Barber, and Andrew Neil) are lionising this speech by Democrat John Deberry as to what the democrats should have been saying all along.
Alas they weren't. And they still aren't.
Doubtless the modern democrats would call him an uncle Tom. I think he should be their candidate.
Here's my second to top 5 as per my current records -
6. George would be celebrating this great day for our country.
7. There are good people on both sides.
8. Vladimir told me he didn't do it and that's good enough for me.
9. If they don't like America they should go back to where they came from.
10. And disinfectant. That kills it in a minute.
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+states+with+largest+military+presence&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS908US909&oq=us+largest+militarystate&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.17817j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Last 5 polls by The Hill/HarrisX:
Biden +4, +6, +8, +9, +9
So lead increasing and now stable.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls
Those who cite his term as Foreign Secretary as reason for saying Boris would be a terrible PM should at least be consistent.
Absolutely.
"RAF jets were scrambled to intercept the Ryanair plane and escorted it to Stansted at about 19:00 BST on Sunday.
Counter-terror officers detained two men, but after investigating they discovered the object in the toilet was a mobile phone."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-53959772
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
Yes, in many respects black Americans have made huge strides - economically, many have levels of prosperity and freedom unknown to their grandparents and it is so much better than it was but it is still not as good as it could or should be.
There comes a point when those who advocate a peaceful and dignified response to institutional racism or terror or state oppression have to contend with the unpalatable truth they are not making progress and the siren voices advocating a more violent response get heard.
It's the same whether it is a protest against Police violence in Wisconsin or electoral fraud in Minsk.
Trump to have sullied his name is a very low moment.
First Labour cabinet minister;
Most senior minister to break ranks with Macdonald in 1931;
Held so fast to his principles that he should never take money he wasn’t entitled to that he suffered financial hardship and died in poverty.
I would say that he would have been a good Labour PM.
That guy was president for eight years. Its funny how he never got any criticism for the oppression of black people that you claim has been going on for sixty, including his own tenure. Not a word. Black lives sure didn't matter then.
Why? because BLM is not about Black Lives Mattering whatsoever. Its nothing to do with that. Its a about a mainly white liberal elite not getting their own way for once.
They cannot abide the man in their way, or the voters in their way. They hate and despise them, and want them gone.
At which point black people can go back to rotting away in democrat run administrations like they have in every democrat administration in the last 60 years.
He didn’t touch her right leg. He didn’t touch her left leg. He touched something...
They are like the eponymous hero in the Scottish play. The Witches of the Biden plus polls told them it couldn't happen. It couldn;t
But that old wood is moving, all the same.
Too many polls commissioned by people with an agenda to push, and too little of the scientific side of the process published for independent scrutiny.
If they released crosstabs we would have an idea of why they got the Rust Belt right and Nevada wrong. Or why they thought Cruz would smash O'Rourke but instead only squeaked by.
But they don't, so we can't.
The Blessed Saint Margaret (PBUH) wanted him to succeed her, so he must have been pretty handy.
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
If you need to tax housing you really do need a land tax (and yes I know that has problems) but it's just about the sanest approach you there is to tax wealth in a collectable way.
Its easier in sport as there is a defined skill that can be more or less measured - ie the best snooker player never to win a WC is probably Jimmy White etc
I do Gaitskell.
But I didn't believe Osborne would have been a good PM. He was personally very confident but I didn't share his Uber modernisation beliefs (the Tories were just his football team) and he had a rather nasty streak to him.
Further, he didn't really do human: everyone and everything in politics was a chess piece to him.
It cannot go on
Rule no.1: we do not ask old people to pay for stuff. It's never going to happen. People don't want the new houses near them full stop. We've got a situation like that here, which has been dragging on to the south of town now for years. Developer has bought up a couple of farmers fields and wants to plonk 99 new homes on them. The fields are on high ground so not a flood risk, they don't affect any protected landscapes or views, and the land has zero archaeological or wildlife value. I run past that way sometimes, and it's scrubby crap that doesn't even look like it's much good for growing anything. The development is modest so it won't put any serious pressure on local public services either.
The simple truth is that the locals don't want it because there'll be a bit of noise and disruption whilst the development is being built, a few of them will find the homes appearing near the bottom of their back gardens, and they'll have to put up with some extra cars on the roads when it's finished. And you're going to have those kinds of problems anywhere that you build houses.
The country is desperately short of homes, and in particular homes in the parts of it where people actually want to live, and the population is still increasing relentlessly: growth was at its slowest rate in 15 years last year, but the 2019 mid-year estimates still showed that there were more than 300,000 additional people living in England that June than there were twelve months previously. That's another 125,000 new homes needed to cope with them, never mind the huge historical backlog.
I'm prepared to entertain the argument that improvements need to be made to the zonal development proposals, but not that fundamental reform isn't required. If we have local communities fighting every little cluster of 50 or 100 homes here, there and everywhere through the existing planning system for years then it'll be impossible ever to provide all the dwellings that are required.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
This despite the huge number of unimplemented permissions and clear evidence that developers sit on both permissions and land to ensure that prices remain high.
The Tory party will surely fold on the reforms, faced with backbench MPs up in arms and myriad Tory councillors looking at losing their seats.
He's far less aggressive and more thoughtful than he used to be.
You could say the same about Portillo too of course.
That Hunt?