Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices
Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care
Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS
It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue
And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home
I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed
Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.
If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.
Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
Pensioners have paid NI all their lives, in part to fund their state pension.
Their children and grandchildren will also do the same and also stop paying NI once they reach pension age
People pay NI to fund current pensions not their own. It has always been so.
You only get the state pension with sufficient NI credits
That's a very misleading statement, as you get pension credit if you have not paid a penny in NI. (Because the government doesn't want poor old people dying of starvation.)
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices
Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care
Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS
It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue
And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home
I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed
Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.
If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.
Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
I do not know of any political party that is supporting the merging of income tax and NI on all income but on my very modest retirement income I would of course pay it if it came into being
I have received personal attacks and I just do not understand why people want to attack all the pensioners in this country who abide by the law, pay their taxes and try to be good parents, grandparents and neighbours and do not involve themselves especially in the political bubble we comment in
Because pensioners are voting to raise taxes on others but not themselves.
Your "very modest retirement income" is no different to someone else's "very modest income" and they're paying NI on that but you're not. That's not equal or equitable in society.
It has been that way through succesivee governments for as long as I can remember and I know of no other party that intends changing it
And NI is paid towards pensions of those pensioners today, just as when you retire the workforce will be paying towards your pension, unless there is some change in paying for the state pension
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re talking about the last 48 hours, and I’m talking about the last 48 months
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
A lot of footballers earn 100k a week. I don’t think any regular Joe should have to pay more tax for social care while that’s the case. A big tax on those who earn, let’s say more than 20 times the national average wage
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Wait, Boris is a Papist now? When did that happen?
I genuinely think the odds of a 2010 in reverse in 2024 is understated
It's possible, but it still seems a distant propsect. The depth of that majority really does take something quite dramatic to cut down.
Polls show Current LD and Labour voters actually like this policy - they’re saying they don’t now because they hate to agree with political enemies, but it’s hardly a firm footing to start a massive push back from
I think people usually hold tax rises against a government so long as they remain generally positive (as much as government is viewed positively, which is not much) about the direction of travel. If things aren't a disaster and the increase in hardship of those most affected is not extreme then the public get over these things. It's one reason MPs could be bolder in pushing things through sometimes.
Economically it seems to be one of the worst taxes the government could choose, but politically it's clearly the most popular (or least unpopular) option - which is, of course, why NI is the tax Brown increased for the NHS, and why the Lib Dems went nowhere with their penny on income tax for Education policy.
I assume the focus groups were very positive about a hypothecated NHS tax. Genuinely surprised that they managed to get the Treasury to agree to it.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices
Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care
Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS
It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue
And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home
I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed
Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.
If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.
Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
I do not know of any political party that is supporting the merging of income tax and NI on all income but on my very modest retirement income I would of course pay it if it came into being
I have received personal attacks and I just do not understand why people want to attack all the pensioners in this country who abide by the law, pay their taxes and try to be good parents, grandparents and neighbours and do not involve themselves especially in the political bubble we comment in
Because pensioners are voting to raise taxes on others but not themselves.
Your "very modest retirement income" is no different to someone else's "very modest income" and they're paying NI on that but you're not. That's not equal or equitable in society.
It has been that way through succesivee governments for as long as I can remember and I know of no other party that intends changing it
And NI is paid towards pensions of those pensioners today, just as when you retire the workforce will be paying towards your pension, unless there is some change in paying for the state pension
Its not been that way for as long as I remember, let alone surely as long as you remember?
When you were in your career what were the NI and tax rates?
Pensions were always taxed, but it is only as Boomers have approached and reached retirement age that NI has been ratchetted up so dramatically and Income Tax cut in turn.
So no, it was not like that your whole life. As a generation when you were working, you were supporting much fewer pensioners, not supporting them for remotely as long, and taxing them income tax. Whereas our generation is supposed to support many more pensioners, for much longer, without them paying the taxes your generation expected pensioners to pay.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
Not much Blue Labour about putting up taxes on working people while leaving the moneyed class intact.
Gavin Williamson really is shown up by confusing Marcus Rashford with… the bloke he confused him with. Pretty discourteous to not remember who he’d spoke to, not to mention the semi racist trap he has fallen into
If he'd confused Ann Widdecombe with Virginia Wade no-one would be bothered would they.
My memory is that Brown attempted a similar wheeze, either with NI or an in-work benefit, that screwed the working poor and ended up being revoked long after it was voted through, once it dawned on the public.
I consider it a nontrivial chance that the same happens with Bozza’s Jobs Tax.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Wait, Boris is a Papist now? When did that happen?
He’s an atheist regardless of what card he currently carries.
Gavin Williamson really is shown up by confusing Marcus Rashford with… the bloke he confused him with. Pretty discourteous to not remember who he’d spoke to, not to mention the semi racist trap he has fallen into
If he'd confused Ann Widdecombe with Virginia Wade no-one would be bothered would they.
It’s plain rude to get mixed up like that though; he was obviously just going through the motions with the non Marcus Rashford person
My memory is that Brown attempted a similar wheeze, either with NI or an in-work benefit, that screwed the working poor and ended up being revoked long after it was voted through, once it dawned on the public.
I consider it a nontrivial chance that the same happens with Bozza’s Jobs Tax.
I think @MaxPB hit the nail on the head earlier today when he said if there's a tax cut it'll be just before the election and it will be Income Tax cut which will only partially reverse the jobs tax rise, while being another cut for pensioner who never had a rise.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Wait, Boris is a Papist now? When did that happen?
Gavin Williamson really is shown up by confusing Marcus Rashford with… the bloke he confused him with. Pretty discourteous to not remember who he’d spoke to, not to mention the semi racist trap he has fallen into
If he'd confused Ann Widdecombe with Virginia Wade no-one would be bothered would they.
It’s plain rude to get mixed up like that though; he was obviously just going through the motions with the non Marcus Rashford person
Maro Itoje comments dryly:
""Due to recent speculation I thought it was necessary to confirm that I am not Marcus Rashford."
I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices
Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care
Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS
It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue
And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home
I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed
Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.
If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.
Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
I do not know of any political party that is supporting the merging of income tax and NI on all income but on my very modest retirement income I would of course pay it if it came into being
I have received personal attacks and I just do not understand why people want to attack all the pensioners in this country who abide by the law, pay their taxes and try to be good parents, grandparents and neighbours and do not involve themselves especially in the political bubble we comment in
Because pensioners are voting to raise taxes on others but not themselves.
Your "very modest retirement income" is no different to someone else's "very modest income" and they're paying NI on that but you're not. That's not equal or equitable in society.
It has been that way through succesivee governments for as long as I can remember and I know of no other party that intends changing it
And NI is paid towards pensions of those pensioners today, just as when you retire the workforce will be paying towards your pension, unless there is some change in paying for the state pension
Its not been that way for as long as I remember, let alone surely as long as you remember?
When you were in your career what were the NI and tax rates?
Pensions were always taxed, but it is only as Boomers have approached and reached retirement age that NI has been ratchetted up so dramatically and Income Tax cut in turn.
So no, it was not like that your whole life. As a generation when you were working, you were supporting much fewer pensioners, not supporting them for remotely as long, and taxing them income tax. Whereas our generation is supposed to support many more pensioners, for much longer, without them paying the taxes your generation expected pensioners to pay.
Funny how that works isn't it?
It was as far as I remember 10% when I turned 60 nearly 18 years ago and I know for sometime before that that I would stop paying NI when I was 60
However I would just say that your crusade against inheritance is not supported by the political parties or the public if the polls are to be believed and nor are the level of London house prices the norm for most peoples outside the M25
I simply do not see the change you want appealing widely across the public or the politicians
I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices
Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care
Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS
It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue
And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home
I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed
Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.
If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.
Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
I do not know of any political party that is supporting the merging of income tax and NI on all income but on my very modest retirement income I would of course pay it if it came into being
I have received personal attacks and I just do not understand why people want to attack all the pensioners in this country who abide by the law, pay their taxes and try to be good parents, grandparents and neighbours and do not involve themselves especially in the political bubble we comment in
Because pensioners are voting to raise taxes on others but not themselves.
Your "very modest retirement income" is no different to someone else's "very modest income" and they're paying NI on that but you're not. That's not equal or equitable in society.
It has been that way through succesivee governments for as long as I can remember and I know of no other party that intends changing it
And NI is paid towards pensions of those pensioners today, just as when you retire the workforce will be paying towards your pension, unless there is some change in paying for the state pension
Its not been that way for as long as I remember, let alone surely as long as you remember?
When you were in your career what were the NI and tax rates?
Pensions were always taxed, but it is only as Boomers have approached and reached retirement age that NI has been ratchetted up so dramatically and Income Tax cut in turn.
So no, it was not like that your whole life. As a generation when you were working, you were supporting much fewer pensioners, not supporting them for remotely as long, and taxing them income tax. Whereas our generation is supposed to support many more pensioners, for much longer, without them paying the taxes your generation expected pensioners to pay.
Funny how that works isn't it?
I can find National Insurance rates in the mid-70s. In 1975 the Class 1 rate was 5.5% for employees and 8.5% for employers. These rates are now 12% and 13.8%, rising to 13.25% and 15.05% - so they've roughly doubled.
The basic rate of income tax in 1975 was 35%, and this is now 20%, while the highest rate was 83% and is now 45%, so income tax rates have roughly halved.
Gavin Williamson really is shown up by confusing Marcus Rashford with… the bloke he confused him with. Pretty discourteous to not remember who he’d spoke to, not to mention the semi racist trap he has fallen into
If he'd confused Ann Widdecombe with Virginia Wade no-one would be bothered would they.
It’s plain rude to get mixed up like that though; he was obviously just going through the motions with the non Marcus Rashford person
Sometimes people get names mixed up. Its not the end of the world - unless you do a Ross from Friends and say the wrong name at the Altar I think most of the time we can laugh about it.
There are much bigger reasons to be annoyed with Williamson than that.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
I think they are just referring to him spaffing money up the wall, and believing in the magic money tree.
If (gay marriage supporting) Johnson has done anything that can be described as socially conservative, please let me know.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices
Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care
Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS
It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue
And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home
I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed
Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.
If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.
Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
I do not know of any political party that is supporting the merging of income tax and NI on all income but on my very modest retirement income I would of course pay it if it came into being
I have received personal attacks and I just do not understand why people want to attack all the pensioners in this country who abide by the law, pay their taxes and try to be good parents, grandparents and neighbours and do not involve themselves especially in the political bubble we comment in
Because pensioners are voting to raise taxes on others but not themselves.
Your "very modest retirement income" is no different to someone else's "very modest income" and they're paying NI on that but you're not. That's not equal or equitable in society.
It has been that way through succesivee governments for as long as I can remember and I know of no other party that intends changing it
And NI is paid towards pensions of those pensioners today, just as when you retire the workforce will be paying towards your pension, unless there is some change in paying for the state pension
Its not been that way for as long as I remember, let alone surely as long as you remember?
When you were in your career what were the NI and tax rates?
Pensions were always taxed, but it is only as Boomers have approached and reached retirement age that NI has been ratchetted up so dramatically and Income Tax cut in turn.
So no, it was not like that your whole life. As a generation when you were working, you were supporting much fewer pensioners, not supporting them for remotely as long, and taxing them income tax. Whereas our generation is supposed to support many more pensioners, for much longer, without them paying the taxes your generation expected pensioners to pay.
Funny how that works isn't it?
It was as far as I remember 10% when I turned 60 nearly 18 years ago and I know for sometime before that that I would stop paying NI when I was 60
However I would just say that your crusade against inheritance is not supported by the political parties or the public if the polls are to be believed and nor are the level of London house prices the norm for most peoples outside the M25
I simply do not see the change you want appealing widely across the public or the politicians
And have a good night
Time to rest
I don't have a crusade against inheritance, I simply want all income treated equitably and its not.
I've not advocated an increase in inheritance tax - but to redistribute taxes to provide other people's inheritance, that's not on.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Wait, Boris is a Papist now? When did that happen?
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
I think they are just referring to him spaffing money up the wall, and believing in the magic money tree.
If (gay marriage supporting) Johnson has done anything that can be described as socially conservative, please let me know.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
Bingo. Very well said.
Hence the terror people have in liberating the housing market, wrapped in a faux concern about green spaces etc
Gavin Williamson really is shown up by confusing Marcus Rashford with… the bloke he confused him with. Pretty discourteous to not remember who he’d spoke to, not to mention the semi racist trap he has fallen into
If he'd confused Ann Widdecombe with Virginia Wade no-one would be bothered would they.
It’s plain rude to get mixed up like that though; he was obviously just going through the motions with the non Marcus Rashford person
Sometimes people get names mixed up. Its not the end of the world - unless you do a Ross from Friends and say the wrong name at the Altar I think most of the time we can laugh about it.
There are much bigger reasons to be annoyed with Williamson than that.
I think it shows a lack of respect for a high profile politician to name check the wrong person they’ve spoken with - it tells everybody how much of an impression the person they spoke to made on them
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
I think they are just referring to him spaffing money up the wall, and believing in the magic money tree.
If (gay marriage supporting) Johnson has done anything that can be described as socially conservative, please let me know.
Stopped FOM?
Fair point.
Though he did so while liberalising movement for non-Europeans to balance it out.
But it shifted the potential for migration from "anyone poor and European who could come even if uneducated and coming for minimum wage" to "people who can meet at least earning a decent income or skills that we need".
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
I'm another who backed Boris because it seemed the only means of getting Brexit. After he'd done it (and from my point of view, I've no real issues with what he's done, or how it's panned out), I was willing to give him a bit of latitude to see what he did.
I'm a social and economic conservative. I've never felt Boris as having any social conservative instinct at-all - about all one could say is he's less insane on the topic than the average Labour Party MP. All the culture war stuff seems to be pure politicking - he's no intention to actually do anything.
His performance over Covid was poor, so much that should have been guidance was made law. I dislike his authoritarianism immensely.
I rather hoped Boris would turn out to be a economic conservative. I certainly didn't expect big tax rises squarely aimed at the working class types who brought him to power.
I think the sentiments above aren't untypical of a lot of traditional Tory supporters/voters. If Boris wins the next election now, it's only because the Labour Party is comprises a collection of people so dense light bends round them. The UK needs the Labour Party to die, and then a new party of the right to emerge, to replace the Tories now they have become centre left.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
They should stick it all in crypto and then watch as the Chinese flash crash the market for 15%.....
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
And this is the (nearly insoluble) problem. We know how to get house prices back to sensible levels - build more. What remains unclear is how on earth we do that without wiping out the entire savings of a generation, and also without crashing the banking system as people default out of mortgages massively in negative equity.
As far as I can see, the only possible escape path which avoids this is to build just enough houses for house prices to remain stable at their current numerical values, and wait for inflation to turn that into a real-terms decline in value. This isn't going to happen overnight, and is also going to be a very difficult delicate balance given the blunt instruments available (essentially just the planing system).
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
Is it left economics? Or just a great big con trick?
There is not one poster on this blog who thinks this solves care crisis once and for all, as it is being sold as.
If not about solving care crisis, what is it? It’s a money grab ahead of a desperate couple of years ahead, designed not around solving care crisis but designed around all those charts showing who voted Tory last time and who didn’t.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
Is it left economics? Or just a great big con trick?
There is not one poster on this blog who thinks this solves care crisis once and for all, as it is being sold as.
If not about solving care crisis, what is it? It’s a money grab ahead of a desperate couple of years ahead, designed not around solving care crisis but designed around all those charts showing who voted Tory last time and who didn’t.
It’s a policy popular with current Labour & LD voters until yesterday
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
And this is the (nearly insoluble) problem. We know how to get house prices back to sensible levels - build more. What remains unclear is how on earth we do that without wiping out the entire savings of a generation, and also without crashing the banking system as people default out of mortgages massively in negative equity.
As far as I can see, the only possible escape path which avoids this is to build just enough houses for house prices to remain stable at their current numerical values, and wait for inflation to turn that into a real-terms decline in value. This isn't going to happen overnight, and is also going to be a very difficult delicate balance given the blunt instruments available (essentially just the planing system).
The only solution is inflation.
Instead of working taxes on incomes, the government could have kept QE running a bit longer fuelling more inflation while liberalising reforms.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Oh, I think it's perfectly achievable.
I'm just not convinced the Johnson government (which has said exactly nothing on the subject) has even registered that this is a problem. On the contrary, it's full of people aged 55 to 65 who have made out like banditos, and think it's all great.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
Is it left economics? Or just a great big con trick?
There is not one poster on this blog who thinks this solves care crisis once and for all, as it is being sold as.
If not about solving care crisis, what is it? It’s a money grab ahead of a desperate couple of years ahead, designed not around solving care crisis but designed around all those charts showing who voted Tory last time and who didn’t.
It’s a policy popular with current Labour & LD voters until yesterday
There is a world of difference between:
Should we raise taxes to pay for social care and the NHS?
Lab and LibDem voters shout "Yes!"
and
Should we raise taxes solely on workers below the age of 65, and not on those who derive their income from investments and on retirees?
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Labour posters mock Boris’s leadership as being Blue Labour - left economics/right culture. So in that way he is demonstrating social conservatism I think
Is it left economics? Or just a great big con trick?
There is not one poster on this blog who thinks this solves care crisis once and for all, as it is being sold as.
If not about solving care crisis, what is it? It’s a money grab ahead of a desperate couple of years ahead, designed not around solving care crisis but designed around all those charts showing who voted Tory last time and who didn’t.
It’s a policy popular with current Labour & LD voters until yesterday
The fact some people don’t see it as the con trick just as I described, doesn’t make me wrong.
Or more likely, many much like myself, I see it as I described, yet still I willingly hand it over.
“I expected you to come for this Boris, those waiting lists in a shocking state and the NHS shop tired - I appreciated the bollocks you had to weave round this to sell it to your own side even now the telegraph ain’t buying it, and the fact care workers on minimum wage are going to end up with less money is distasteful to me, in fact makes me cross, but for all those people waiting for operations, here take it off me, just don’t blow it on your consultant chums, you ugly cunt.”
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
Yes. It is only "savings" in a psychological sense. No one has saved anything by owning assets. Their value is only what another is prepared to pay for it. See my point earlier about the preponderance of stats and logic on this site. And a relative absence of understanding of psychology.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
It is only "savings" in a psychological sense. No one has saved anything by owning assets. Its value is only what another is prepared to pay for it. See my point earlier about the preponderance of stats and logic on this site. And a relative absence of understanding of psychology.
The issue with housing and why there's rightly no CGT on a primary residence is that there is no real gain in having your own home go up in value.
You always need somewhere to live, so unless you intend to downsize, which is extremely rare, there's nothing real gained even if you have a paper gain. If you move you can sell your home for immense profit, but then need to immediately put it all back in for your new home.
Only those with multiple properties they can then sell while keeping their own is it a real gain.
PS even for "inheritance" purposes it's not a positive. Sure you can leave something behind but if you have multiple kids, grandkids and or great grandchildren then presumably any legacy is being divided. But all your adult kids and grandkids etc will need their own home and could get would be better off if prices were lower
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
It is only "savings" in a psychological sense. No one has saved anything by owning assets. Its value is only what another is prepared to pay for it. See my point earlier about the preponderance of stats and logic on this site. And a relative absence of understanding of psychology.
The issue with housing and why there's rightly no CGT on a primary residence is that there is no real gain in having your own home go up in value.
You always need somewhere to live, so unless you intend to downsize, which is extremely rare, there's nothing real gained even if you have a paper gain. If you move you can sell your home for immense profit, but then need to immediately put it all back in for your new home.
Only those with multiple properties they can then sell while keeping their own is it a real gain.
PS even for "inheritance" purposes it's not a positive. Sure you can leave something behind but if you have multiple kids, grandkids and or great grandchildren then presumably any legacy is being divided. But all your adult kids and grandkids etc will need their own home and could get would be better off if prices were lower
It is said London will be hit the hardest by the 1.25% charge
It was so funny when a conservative mp said to Adam Boulton that television presenters on £400 000 will need to find another £4,500
Yes it is really funny that a pensioner like you is getting an increase whilst us workers have to pay a lot more tax so you can enjoy life more and bequeath your family a nice house.
Yes, I've just calculated how much extra I have to pay for this.
Boris done a Jennifer Acuri on you TSE?
No, I always knew Boris Johnson would screw everybody.
The IFS say this tax on jobs will cost 50,000 jobs, then Big G really will laugh.
George Osborne supports this jobs tax?
Well George is wrong.
As I pointed out last night google 'George Osborne says an increase on national insurance is a tax on jobs' brings up nearly 2 million results.
That’s because it’s a tax on jobs, no matter whether it’s Labour or Conservatives proposing it.
Still surprised no-one resigned from the government, to vote against it last night. Not even a junior bag-carrier. Poor show from the MPs, that only five voted with their conscience.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
He may be popular because people overlook his inadequacies for support of Brexit, but he is unpopular because he is an inadequate fraud.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
It is only "savings" in a psychological sense. No one has saved anything by owning assets. Its value is only what another is prepared to pay for it. See my point earlier about the preponderance of stats and logic on this site. And a relative absence of understanding of psychology.
The issue with housing and why there's rightly no CGT on a primary residence is that there is no real gain in having your own home go up in value.
You always need somewhere to live, so unless you intend to downsize, which is extremely rare, there's nothing real gained even if you have a paper gain. If you move you can sell your home for immense profit, but then need to immediately put it all back in for your new home.
Only those with multiple properties they can then sell while keeping their own is it a real gain.
PS even for "inheritance" purposes it's not a positive. Sure you can leave something behind but if you have multiple kids, grandkids and or great grandchildren then presumably any legacy is being divided. But all your adult kids and grandkids etc will need their own home and could get would be better off if prices were lower
That overlooks the massive regional disparities that have opened up in the housing market over the last couple of decades. And in particular the distorting effect of London property prices.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.
The next GE we got the Coalition.
Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.
Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.
Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).
Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.
Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.
Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.
He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.
And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.
There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
Maybe not you and those you mention , but on the whole he’s unpopular/popular, on here, because of Brexit
The criticism that Boris has been getting in the last 48 hours has predominantly been from Philip, Max and Casino. (I forgot @Richard_Tyndall who was similarly unimpressed.) Remainers like @Richard_Nabavi have - on the other hand - been quite a bit more measured in their response (see below).
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
But you’re taking about the last 48 hours, and I’m taking about the last 48 months
@HYUFD said that Johnson was popular with the posters on this board because he was a Cameroon, and that he is only unpopular now because he's demonstrating social conservatism.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
Wait, Boris is a Papist now? When did that happen?
He’s an atheist regardless of what card he currently carries.
Can you count as an atheist if you believe you yourself are god?
Comments
And NI is paid towards pensions of those pensioners today, just as when you retire the workforce will be paying towards your pension, unless there is some change in paying for the state pension
Pretending that this is about Brexit is fooling yourself. It is about the fact that the Conservatives have chosen to collect a tax to pay for social care *only* from working people of a pre-retirement age.
Which - if you ask me - looks like they are pandering to their core vote, rather than to the health of the country as a whole.
That was the comment I was replying to.
And, for the record, I'm baffled by the idea that Johnson is demonstrating social conservatism, unless conversion to Roman Catholicism counts.
I assume the focus groups were very positive about a hypothecated NHS tax. Genuinely surprised that they managed to get the Treasury to agree to it.
When you were in your career what were the NI and tax rates?
Pensions were always taxed, but it is only as Boomers have approached and reached retirement age that NI has been ratchetted up so dramatically and Income Tax cut in turn.
So no, it was not like that your whole life. As a generation when you were working, you were supporting much fewer pensioners, not supporting them for remotely as long, and taxing them income tax. Whereas our generation is supposed to support many more pensioners, for much longer, without them paying the taxes your generation expected pensioners to pay.
Funny how that works isn't it?
I consider it a nontrivial chance that the same happens with Bozza’s Jobs Tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/world/europe/boris-johnson-married-catholic-church.html
""Due to recent speculation I thought it was necessary to confirm that I am not Marcus Rashford."
However I would just say that your crusade against inheritance is not supported by the political parties or the public if the polls are to be believed and nor are the level of London house prices the norm for most peoples outside the M25
I simply do not see the change you want appealing widely across the public or the politicians
And have a good night
Time to rest
The basic rate of income tax in 1975 was 35%, and this is now 20%, while the highest rate was 83% and is now 45%, so income tax rates have roughly halved.
There are much bigger reasons to be annoyed with Williamson than that.
If (gay marriage supporting) Johnson has done anything that can be described as socially conservative, please let me know.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford.
Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other.
I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
I've not advocated an increase in inheritance tax - but to redistribute taxes to provide other people's inheritance, that's not on.
Hence the terror people have in liberating the housing market, wrapped in a faux concern about green spaces etc
But it's rather a theoretical liking these days, and I'm, well, temperamentally tranquil
Though he did so while liberalising movement for non-Europeans to balance it out.
But it shifted the potential for migration from "anyone poor and European who could come even if uneducated and coming for minimum wage" to "people who can meet at least earning a decent income or skills that we need".
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
MP Whatever bureaucratic waste or insane executive salaries is flagged up, it’s this controversial money being wasted!
After he'd done it (and from my point of view, I've no real issues with what he's done, or how it's panned out), I was willing to give him a bit of latitude to see what he did.
I'm a social and economic conservative. I've never felt Boris as having any social conservative instinct at-all - about all one could say is he's less insane on the topic than the average Labour Party MP. All the culture war stuff seems to be pure politicking - he's no intention to actually do anything.
His performance over Covid was poor, so much that should have been guidance was made law. I dislike his authoritarianism immensely.
I rather hoped Boris would turn out to be a economic conservative. I certainly didn't expect big tax rises squarely aimed at the working class types who brought him to power.
I think the sentiments above aren't untypical of a lot of traditional Tory supporters/voters. If Boris wins the next election now, it's only because the Labour Party is comprises a collection of people so dense light bends round them.
The UK needs the Labour Party to die, and then a new party of the right to emerge, to replace the Tories now they have become centre left.
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
We know how to get house prices back to sensible levels - build more.
What remains unclear is how on earth we do that without wiping out the entire savings of a generation, and also without crashing the banking system as people default out of mortgages massively in negative equity.
As far as I can see, the only possible escape path which avoids this is to build just enough houses for house prices to remain stable at their current numerical values, and wait for inflation to turn that into a real-terms decline in value.
This isn't going to happen overnight, and is also going to be a very difficult delicate balance given the blunt instruments available (essentially just the planing system).
There is not one poster on this blog who thinks this solves care crisis once and for all, as it is being sold as.
If not about solving care crisis, what is it? It’s a money grab ahead of a desperate couple of years ahead, designed not around solving care crisis but designed around all those charts showing who voted Tory last time and who didn’t.
Instead of working taxes on incomes, the government could have kept QE running a bit longer fuelling more inflation while liberalising reforms.
I'm just not convinced the Johnson government (which has said exactly nothing on the subject) has even registered that this is a problem. On the contrary, it's full of people aged 55 to 65 who have made out like banditos, and think it's all great.
Should we raise taxes to pay for social care and the NHS?
Lab and LibDem voters shout "Yes!"
and
Should we raise taxes solely on workers below the age of 65, and not on those who derive their income from investments and on retirees?
Lab and LibDem voters shout "You what???"
Or more likely, many much like myself, I see it as I described, yet still I willingly hand it over.
“I expected you to come for this Boris, those waiting lists in a shocking state and the NHS shop tired - I appreciated the bollocks you had to weave round this to sell it to your own side even now the telegraph ain’t buying it, and the fact care workers on minimum wage are going to end up with less money is distasteful to me, in fact makes me cross, but for all those people waiting for operations, here take it off me, just don’t blow it on your consultant chums, you ugly cunt.”
https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/1435734815823826952
See my point earlier about the preponderance of stats and logic on this site. And a relative absence of understanding of psychology.
You always need somewhere to live, so unless you intend to downsize, which is extremely rare, there's nothing real gained even if you have a paper gain. If you move you can sell your home for immense profit, but then need to immediately put it all back in for your new home.
Only those with multiple properties they can then sell while keeping their own is it a real gain.
PS even for "inheritance" purposes it's not a positive. Sure you can leave something behind but if you have multiple kids, grandkids and or great grandchildren then presumably any legacy is being divided. But all your adult kids and grandkids etc will need their own home and could get would be better off if prices were lower
Still surprised no-one resigned from the government, to vote against it last night. Not even a junior bag-carrier. Poor show from the MPs, that only five voted with their conscience.
In fact, does he know that General Lee isn’t (just) a car?
Chope, Christopher.
Davies, Philip.
Hudson, Neil.
McVey, Esther.
Redwood, John.
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2021/09/the-five-conservative-mps-who-voted-against-the-health-and-social-care-levy.html
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1088#notrecorded
Includes:
Lee Anderson
Steve Baker
Jake Berry (surprised he didn't vote no)
Peter Bone
Andrew Bridgen
Bill Cash
David Davis
Dehenna Davison
Charles Walker
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
NEW THREAD
In fact, I’m pretty sure he would have won in two years not four.