Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Just 19% think the Chancellor’s changes will make them better off – politicalbetting.com

1235710

Comments

  • glwglw Posts: 8,515
    kle4 said:

    Economic theorists of all flavours seem no better at prediction than fortune tellers or entrail readers. Given the incredible diversity of opinion on offer there's clearly no single objective preferred economic path to take, so the various lobby groups who always propose the same things appear to be little more than ideological hacks dressing up their preferences with the false appearance of analysis and models that can show whatever they want them to show. Like pundits of any type they will never being repeatedly wrong slow them down, so all we can do is hope that by pure chance this set of ideological hacks is right this time and the other hacks wrong.

    As I've said before, probably at least a hundred times, if people could predict movements of markets, currencies, and so on, they would not tell another soul on Earth. They'd keep that to themselves and become fabulously rich. Anyone selling "predictions" fundamentally does not believe the words coming from their own mouth.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,082

    I have a joke about trickle down economics

    Unfortunately 99% of you wont get it!!

    Did you steal that from David Lammy, or did he steal it from you?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 914
    glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Would be brutally amusing if this works just well enough to see the Tories win a majority of less than 10.
    It will be absolutely bloody hilarious if it works. Genuinely laugh out loud stuff. Record levels of egg on face if it works.

    I've no idea. I mean I get it, but I can't help thinking "but right now?" So either the whole government has gone raving mad, or I'm missing something.

    I will be delighted to have my scepticism disproved.
    The immediate reaction - markets, "experts" or polling - really is irrelevant. There's long enough until the next election that people will be able to judge if it has worked.
  • Foxy said:

    In other news:

    I counted 25 ambulances trying to unload outside my Hospitals casualty at 1800. The NI charge was supposed to pay to fix this. Where is the money coming from?

    Today's plan is the economic equivalent of solving the above problem by building a bigger carpark.

    Coffey says she is putting £500m into social care now to reduce massive rates of bed blocking.

    Any idea whether this will help in Leicester? Is it just more spin?

    Will cut any UK Chancellor of the Exchequer some slack re: public statements on day when the pound is taking a right pounding.

    Not much, mind you. Especially when CoE has just launched his (and his PM's) own bellyflop of a "bankers ramp".
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,754

    boulay said:

    ping said:

    Genuine question for @BartholomewRoberts

    Are you disappointed in the reception to this budget among journos, with the markets and on PB? Oh, and the think tanks etc? Oh and the polling in the header.

    I mean, stuff like the IFS judgement must sting, surely?

    "364 economists can't be wrong"

    I'm glad declinist orthodoxy is being challenged.
    I’ve had to think about how to word what I am going to write for obvious reasons but I wanted to convey a snapshot of how this approach by the gov was seen in advance of today and give a hint of how it will be seen.

    On Monday I was contacted by a counterparty who I deal with who represents, for ease of the story and other good reasons, a sovereign wealth fund. He was offering my client a few billion in Gilts in a private sale at a very healthy discount.

    They obviously didn’t want to sell on open market as it would have consequences so the sizeable discount was offered to protect the value as best as possible.

    He made it clear his client believed the UK was going to crash.

    I didn’t think for one second that my client would take the offer because they are working on the same considerations - I passed it on as I am obliged too and received the answer I expected to say “thanks but no thanks”.

    I wish I could provide on here the details to prove and demonstrate how much of a haircut the seller was willing to take on Monday but I think if they did sell then they will be happy in the medium term.

    So your bullishness and happiness about today might turn out to be well founded and the gamble pays off but it has massive consequences and at the moment there are plenty outside the UK who don’t think it will.
    There's a danger in conflating someone's narrow judgment about the direction of gilts
    with a broad judgment on the overall economy. It's possible that they are right and also that the policy is correct.
    Absolutely, however if I was able to explain who the seller was you would see that they have access to top advice, if I was able to say what they were willing to write off in capital terms then you would see how badly they viewed medium term prospects then you would get that there is serious serious concern - people don’t bin huge amounts of cash for nothing.

    It then extrapolates out into whether these same people or connected parties or those with same info hold off planned investment either through fear or waiting for a fire sale to buy in cheap.

    People want stability from the man in the street to wealth funds. This is a massive overturning of stability which I would support whole-heartedly if the economy was in good shape but now was not the time.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,507

    Foxy said:

    In other news:

    I counted 25 ambulances trying to unload outside my Hospitals casualty at 1800. The NI charge was supposed to pay to fix this. Where is the money coming from?

    Today's plan is the economic equivalent of solving the above problem by building a bigger carpark.

    Coffey says she is putting £500m into social care now to reduce massive rates of bed blocking.

    Any idea whether this will help in Leicester? Is it just more spin?

    The social care problem is mostly lack of staff, and of course heating bills this winter.

    I don't see how it solves this problem over the winter.

    Let's hope the Hindutva and Islamic twats don't kick off again this weekend. They will be waiting a long time for an ambulance if they do. We could do with the heavy and persistent presence of Constable Rain, but it looks to be a dry weekend.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I think the most worrying thing about the dire outlook for the public finances is that all the huge spending pressures (which Kwarteng almost completely ignored) haven't gone away. Departmental spending plans, already under very severe pressure, are going to be further kiboshed by inflation. Defence spending, already looking low given Ukraine, is going to be further kiboshed by the fall in sterling relative to the US dollar. The energy-cost crisis is probably not going to disappear by the end of the current, eye-wateringly expensive, programme of Truss handouts. The NHS backlog, despite Therese Coffey's new targets, is not going to solve itself. Measures to mitigate the social care crisis are not going to be cheap.

    Will the government really be able to ignore all this and leave spending plans unchanged? I don't think so. So I rather fear that today's fiscal incontinence is not the end of the matter. Those spending pressures are going to come up against Truss ideology, and the result of that can only be yet more irresponsible borrowing,

    We may have to invade somewhere, like Putin, to distract the voters

    Start with Ireland?
    Ireland might be a bit of a stretch, given the state of our armed forces. I'd go for unveiling @HYUFD's plans for sending the tanks into Scotland and installing a puppet regime there.
    Conventional forces in Ireland would be easy. We could rip through it in 48 hours.

    But, a "British occupation" would spawn the formations of hundreds of new irregular guerilla cells - aided and abetted by USA "Irish" - so it would quickly become a nightmare with high casualties all round.
    The invading is usually the easy bit.
    The key is to be exceptionally ruthless and brutal, to the point of genocide

    The Romans did it well, likewise the Mongols

    The only alternative is to have total technological superiority allied with supreme self confidence: AKA the British Empire

    The worst thing is to go in half arsed, fuck about, get nervy, refuse to crack down properly, realise your enemy is wily and capable, get spooked, etc etc, that's the story of multiple invasions since 1945, which have nearly all gone wrong
  • glwglw Posts: 8,515
    Driver said:

    glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Would be brutally amusing if this works just well enough to see the Tories win a majority of less than 10.
    It will be absolutely bloody hilarious if it works. Genuinely laugh out loud stuff. Record levels of egg on face if it works.

    I've no idea. I mean I get it, but I can't help thinking "but right now?" So either the whole government has gone raving mad, or I'm missing something.

    I will be delighted to have my scepticism disproved.
    The immediate reaction - markets, "experts" or polling - really is irrelevant. There's long enough until the next election that people will be able to judge if it has worked.
    That's my view. In 2 years time we'll either be talking about Kwarteng taking over mid-term, or cheering the departure of Truss.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,161

    I have a joke about trickle down economics

    Unfortunately 99% of you wont get it!!

    Did you steal that from David Lammy, or did he steal it from you?
    I stole it off twitter did the person i stole it from steal it from Lammy?

    Bugger
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,676
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I wonder if there are any ashen faces inside the IEA or TPA, as with some Vote Leave types in 2016, now they realise their somewhat quixotic personal theories are about to be implemented by an actual government.
    https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1573322949209251841

    Economic theorists of all flavours seem no better at prediction than fortune tellers or entrail readers. Given the incredible diversity of opinion on offer there's clearly no single objective preferred economic path to take, so the various lobby groups who always propose the same things appear to be little more than ideological hacks dressing up their preferences with the false appearance of analysis and models that can show whatever they want them to show. Like pundits of any type they will never being repeatedly wrong slow them down, so all we can do is hope that by pure chance this set of ideological hacks is right this time and the other hacks wrong.
    Yes, it's not as if House Portes and the other think-tankies arrived at their homogenous big-state consensus at random. When Brown introduced the SpAds and other political appointments, they birthed this huge officer class of Porteses and Johnsons and the like who bailed out into the think tanks.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,015
    Meanwhile in Iran:

    @Joyce_Karam
    Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime


    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,517

    I have a joke about trickle down economics

    Unfortunately 99% of you wont get it!!

    Did you steal that from David Lammy, or did he steal it from you?
    I stole it off twitter did the person i stole it from steal it from Lammy?

    Bugger
    I heard that joke from someone and repeated it on here, I think, several months ago.
    It wasn't made today. By Lammy or anyone else.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,641
    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    I think the most worrying thing about the dire outlook for the public finances is that all the huge spending pressures (which Kwarteng almost completely ignored) haven't gone away. Departmental spending plans, already under very severe pressure, are going to be further kiboshed by inflation. Defence spending, already looking low given Ukraine, is going to be further kiboshed by the fall in sterling relative to the US dollar. The energy-cost crisis is probably not going to disappear by the end of the current, eye-wateringly expensive, programme of Truss handouts. The NHS backlog, despite Therese Coffey's new targets, is not going to solve itself. Measures to mitigate the social care crisis are not going to be cheap.

    Will the government really be able to ignore all this and leave spending plans unchanged? I don't think so. So I rather fear that today's fiscal incontinence is not the end of the matter. Those spending pressures are going to come up against Truss ideology, and the result of that can only be yet more irresponsible borrowing,

    We may have to invade somewhere, like Putin, to distract the voters

    Start with Ireland?
    Ireland might be a bit of a stretch, given the state of our armed forces. I'd go for unveiling @HYUFD's plans for sending the tanks into Scotland and installing a puppet regime there.
    Conventional forces in Ireland would be easy. We could rip through it in 48 hours.

    But, a "British occupation" would spawn the formations of hundreds of new irregular guerilla cells - aided and abetted by USA "Irish" - so it would quickly become a nightmare with high casualties all round.
    Ireland's strategic last resort is more or less to facilitate UK armed forces to (re-)occupy the country against the Russians or Robot-Japanese or whomever.
    Wouldn't they rather invite a US brigade to come visit?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,015
    I always thought of Coffey as the invisible Cabinet Member, as she was the one I'd always forget existed, and assumed was probably one of the more quietly competent (no idea if that is so). But it looks from these early weeks that Truss will be relying on her quite heavily.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,782
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news:

    I counted 25 ambulances trying to unload outside my Hospitals casualty at 1800. The NI charge was supposed to pay to fix this. Where is the money coming from?

    Today's plan is the economic equivalent of solving the above problem by building a bigger carpark.

    Coffey says she is putting £500m into social care now to reduce massive rates of bed blocking.

    Any idea whether this will help in Leicester? Is it just more spin?

    The social care problem is mostly lack of staff, and of course heating bills this winter.

    I don't see how it solves this problem over the winter.

    Let's hope the Hindutva and Islamic twats don't kick off again this weekend. They will be waiting a long time for an ambulance if they do. We could do with the heavy and persistent presence of Constable Rain, but it looks to be a dry weekend.

    "The social care problem is mostly lack of staff"

    Indeed. Tell me about it! Sadly, my wife has got to a point where my care alone is no longer enough. It has been two months of hell trying to find a care agency package that works for her requirements.

    Everywhere the cry is: "no capacity to take you on".

  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362
    glw said:

    Driver said:

    glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Would be brutally amusing if this works just well enough to see the Tories win a majority of less than 10.
    It will be absolutely bloody hilarious if it works. Genuinely laugh out loud stuff. Record levels of egg on face if it works.

    I've no idea. I mean I get it, but I can't help thinking "but right now?" So either the whole government has gone raving mad, or I'm missing something.

    I will be delighted to have my scepticism disproved.
    The immediate reaction - markets, "experts" or polling - really is irrelevant. There's long enough until the next election that people will be able to judge if it has worked.
    That's my view. In 2 years time we'll either be talking about Kwarteng taking over mid-term, or cheering the departure of Truss.
    No, if this fails then Truss and Kwarteng go down as one, they are economic summiteers roped together

    Sunak or Boris might take over, but more likely Starmer will simply walk into No 10
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,740
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Some interesting and vaguely relevant polling from YouGov:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/129959565/josie-pagani-what-voters-want-is-fairness-and-government-action

    Income taxed less, wealth taxed more. The Chancellor has the equation half right (or half wrong) and the public mood, perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic experience, is for fairness and money spent on resolving real issues rather than vanity projects.

    If I were advising Starmer or Davey, I'd tell them to go strong on this notion of fairness.

    There isn't much support for taxing elderly widows in big houses more but slashing taxes for bankers even further than Kwarteng did today and an inheritance tax rise would be deeply unpopular
    The key word is fairness and how that is defined.

    "Elderly widows in big houses". I have no clue as to whether this is just a cliche or we were talking about hundreds of thousands of cases but what about struggling families in inadequate rented properties? How does cutting stamp duty (which will stoke another property boom pushing the price of a house further out of their reach) equate to fairness? Should Government policy be targeted solely at elderly widows in big houses?

    I suspect the call to cut income tax doesn't refer to reducing the tax "burden" of the wealthy but for those on much lower incomes for whom a 1p cut is at best a sop. A flatter tax system doesn't mean a fairer tax system for many.

    Your position on Inheritance Tax is well known and is clearly a cornerstone of your Conservative principles. I benefitted from a legacy when my father died so I'll try to avoid being a complete hypocrite. The problem with the social care proposals is for those needing care and especially for those with dementia, the costs have to be met by someone from somewhere. Increasing the level at which an individual's assets cannot be touched is fine for the family but the care home will still need paying - if the local authority has to pick up the bill that's money it doesn't have to spend on, for example, care for a vulnerable child.

    Preserving Peter's inheritance at the cost of Paul's care ?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,936
    HYUFD said:

    Not a great start for Kwasi and Liz's first mini budget then, most voters clearly think the changes will mainly benefit the wealthy. However we will see if it kickstarts growth and reduces the deficit as they intend

    'Conservative voters on the measures Kwasi Kwarteng announced today

    60% say it will leave people like them no better off
    58% say they will benefit wealthier people more than poorer people
    40% say will not be effective at growing the economy (only 32% think they will be effective)'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573338767879962625?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    'Do you think the changes the Chancellor announced this week will generally benefit wealthier people more, poorer people more, or benefit both equally?

    Wealthier people: 63%
    Poorer people: 3%
    Both equally: 9%'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573329167693008896?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    You were right HY!

    Bring back Boris! This lot are horrific, and Boris was a bit of a giggle wasn't he?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362

    Meanwhile in Iran:

    @Joyce_Karam
    Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime


    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409

    Wow. There is so much news the fierce anger in Iran passed me by

    That does look like critical for the regime
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,120
    edited September 23
    Surely no sane Tory MPs thinks he can sell today's lark on the doorstep. This is longest-suicide-note-in-history stuff. I suspect there'll be a move against Liz soon enough, and her brief tenure will be explained away as some sort of systemic glitch.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,517
    Pound still falling. 1.0865 on Wall Street now.
    The weekend will be critical.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,515
    Leon said:

    glw said:

    Driver said:

    glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Would be brutally amusing if this works just well enough to see the Tories win a majority of less than 10.
    It will be absolutely bloody hilarious if it works. Genuinely laugh out loud stuff. Record levels of egg on face if it works.

    I've no idea. I mean I get it, but I can't help thinking "but right now?" So either the whole government has gone raving mad, or I'm missing something.

    I will be delighted to have my scepticism disproved.
    The immediate reaction - markets, "experts" or polling - really is irrelevant. There's long enough until the next election that people will be able to judge if it has worked.
    That's my view. In 2 years time we'll either be talking about Kwarteng taking over mid-term, or cheering the departure of Truss.
    No, if this fails then Truss and Kwarteng go down as one, they are economic summiteers roped together

    Sunak or Boris might take over, but more likely Starmer will simply walk into No 10
    I certainly meant they would both carry the can if it goes wrong. But if it goes right and Kwarteng does prove to be an economic genius he surely would be the candidate for next leader and PM, and Truss would find it quite difficult to stop any rival credited with "saving the economy".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,905

    HYUFD said:

    Not a great start for Kwasi and Liz's first mini budget then, most voters clearly think the changes will mainly benefit the wealthy. However we will see if it kickstarts growth and reduces the deficit as they intend

    'Conservative voters on the measures Kwasi Kwarteng announced today

    60% say it will leave people like them no better off
    58% say they will benefit wealthier people more than poorer people
    40% say will not be effective at growing the economy (only 32% think they will be effective)'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573338767879962625?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    'Do you think the changes the Chancellor announced this week will generally benefit wealthier people more, poorer people more, or benefit both equally?

    Wealthier people: 63%
    Poorer people: 3%
    Both equally: 9%'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573329167693008896?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    You were right HY!

    Bring back Boris! This lot are horrific, and Boris was a bit of a giggle wasn't he?
    Don't say you weren't warned, yes.

    This is now clearly the most rightwing government since Thatcher but without the sound money concerns of the early Thatcher years.

    Though Truss clearly went out of her way to wind up the left today, slashed taxes for the rich, slashed corporation tax, tightened conditions for universal credit and then as the icing on the cake she recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,391

    I have a joke about trickle down economics

    Unfortunately 99% of you wont get it!!

    As a Tory supporter, what’s your view of today’s budget?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,369
    edited September 23
    I bet SKS can't believe his luck at this shit show of a government though things get tricky for him when he gets into power and actually has to try and clear up this mess.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,517
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Some interesting and vaguely relevant polling from YouGov:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/129959565/josie-pagani-what-voters-want-is-fairness-and-government-action

    Income taxed less, wealth taxed more. The Chancellor has the equation half right (or half wrong) and the public mood, perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic experience, is for fairness and money spent on resolving real issues rather than vanity projects.

    If I were advising Starmer or Davey, I'd tell them to go strong on this notion of fairness.

    There isn't much support for taxing elderly widows in big houses more but slashing taxes for bankers even further than Kwarteng did today and an inheritance tax rise would be deeply unpopular
    The key word is fairness and how that is defined.

    "Elderly widows in big houses". I have no clue as to whether this is just a cliche or we were talking about hundreds of thousands of cases but what about struggling families in inadequate rented properties? How does cutting stamp duty (which will stoke another property boom pushing the price of a house further out of their reach) equate to fairness? Should Government policy be targeted solely at elderly widows in big houses?

    I suspect the call to cut income tax doesn't refer to reducing the tax "burden" of the wealthy but for those on much lower incomes for whom a 1p cut is at best a sop. A flatter tax system doesn't mean a fairer tax system for many.

    Your position on Inheritance Tax is well known and is clearly a cornerstone of your Conservative principles. I benefitted from a legacy when my father died so I'll try to avoid being a complete hypocrite. The problem with the social care proposals is for those needing care and especially for those with dementia, the costs have to be met by someone from somewhere. Increasing the level at which an individual's assets cannot be touched is fine for the family but the care home will still need paying - if the local authority has to pick up the bill that's money it doesn't have to spend on, for example, care for a vulnerable child.

    Preserving Peter's inheritance at the cost of Paul's care ?
    Elderly single people in large social housing properties are a serious block on the housing stock.
    If they could be "incentivised" to move into retirement flats, so as families could move in, this would be a huge step forwards.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,158
    glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Would be brutally amusing if this works just well enough to see the Tories win a majority of less than 10.
    It will be absolutely bloody hilarious if it works. Genuinely laugh out loud stuff. Record levels of egg on face if it works.

    I've no idea. I mean I get it, but I can't help thinking "but right now?" So either the whole government has gone raving mad, or I'm missing something.

    I will be delighted to have my scepticism disproved.
    Agree. I can't see how this can possibly work. But, and it's a fairly major qualification, I don't think I or anyone else has any idea what would actually work in its place in respect of both resolving all the current problems and allowing the Tories a sniff at winning the next election. Or either of these.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,905
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Some interesting and vaguely relevant polling from YouGov:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/129959565/josie-pagani-what-voters-want-is-fairness-and-government-action

    Income taxed less, wealth taxed more. The Chancellor has the equation half right (or half wrong) and the public mood, perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic experience, is for fairness and money spent on resolving real issues rather than vanity projects.

    If I were advising Starmer or Davey, I'd tell them to go strong on this notion of fairness.

    There isn't much support for taxing elderly widows in big houses more but slashing taxes for bankers even further than Kwarteng did today and an inheritance tax rise would be deeply unpopular
    The key word is fairness and how that is defined.

    "Elderly widows in big houses". I have no clue as to whether this is just a cliche or we were talking about hundreds of thousands of cases but what about struggling families in inadequate rented properties? How does cutting stamp duty (which will stoke another property boom pushing the price of a house further out of their reach) equate to fairness? Should Government policy be targeted solely at elderly widows in big houses?

    I suspect the call to cut income tax doesn't refer to reducing the tax "burden" of the wealthy but for those on much lower incomes for whom a 1p cut is at best a sop. A flatter tax system doesn't mean a fairer tax system for many.

    Your position on Inheritance Tax is well known and is clearly a cornerstone of your Conservative principles. I benefitted from a legacy when my father died so I'll try to avoid being a complete hypocrite. The problem with the social care proposals is for those needing care and especially for those with dementia, the costs have to be met by someone from somewhere. Increasing the level at which an individual's assets cannot be touched is fine for the family but the care home will still need paying - if the local authority has to pick up the bill that's money it doesn't have to spend on, for example, care for a vulnerable child.

    Preserving Peter's inheritance at the cost of Paul's care ?
    Struggling families in rented properties generally don't vote Tory, Truss has little interest in them therefore unlike elderly widows in big houses and bankers and home owners.

    Everybody who needs care still has to contribute £86k for it, just no more than that
  • MaxPB said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Which is fine, realistically we need 6 years of 2% over trend growth to just get back to the absolute tax take we have today. I don't see how this will give us 3.5-4% annual growth rates. We're betting the house on this but we've probably backed the wrong horse. I have no ideological issue with cutting taxes to stimulate growth, the taxes that have been cut are not going to deliver the extra growth because it doesn't deliver business investment and that's where the UK economy has been struggling for 15 years. The personal tax burden is actually not bad compared to our competitor nations, it's the business investment environment. This splurge does absolutely nothing to fix it.
    If one were totally cynical, the conculsion would be that those who have been pushing this sort of thing for decades were never that interested in growing the UK economy as a whole to deliver better for everyone.

    That they were what some people have accused them of being all along- rich people who just wanted an excuse to keep more of their riches for themselves. I wish I could interpret today's announcements differently, but there's something so utterly blatant, get your todger out and pretend to be an elephant about them that I can't.

    On topic, 1 percent predicting they will be better off as a result of all the changes in the pipeline (thresholds are still frozen, f'rexample) is in the right ballpark, isn't it?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,054

    Meanwhile in Iran:

    @Joyce_Karam
    Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime


    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409

    Sounds promising, but we’ve been here before.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362
    dixiedean said:

    Pound still falling. 1.0865 on Wall Street now.
    The weekend will be critical.

    it's scary shit

    However HMG has one big thing in its favour. In a world of war, high inflation, lingering plague, and terrific instability everywhere - from Ukraine to Iran to Sri Lanka and Latin America - where the F do you put your money?

    Yeah, Britain looks a bit wobbly. But it is still Britain. A large rich economy, with its own central bank and the rule of law, and a fine education sector, lots of cultural power, etc. When all is said and done it is still a place worth lending to

    Because the alternatives aren't obvious. America? What if Trump wins in 2024? It is hideously divided. Germany is usually reliable, but is now expecting to take a 4% hit to GDP this year, due to Putin. France, hmm. Italy awks. You can only buy so many Swiss Francs

    Japan and Korea are in the Taiwan war zone. And so on and so forth
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,460

    MaxPB said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Which is fine, realistically we need 6 years of 2% over trend growth to just get back to the absolute tax take we have today. I don't see how this will give us 3.5-4% annual growth rates. We're betting the house on this but we've probably backed the wrong horse. I have no ideological issue with cutting taxes to stimulate growth, the taxes that have been cut are not going to deliver the extra growth because it doesn't deliver business investment and that's where the UK economy has been struggling for 15 years. The personal tax burden is actually not bad compared to our competitor nations, it's the business investment environment. This splurge does absolutely nothing to fix it.
    If one were totally cynical, the conculsion would be that those who have been pushing this sort of thing for decades were never that interested in growing the UK economy as a whole to deliver better for everyone.

    That they were what some people have accused them of being all along- rich people who just wanted an excuse to keep more of their riches for themselves. I wish I could interpret today's announcements differently, but there's something so utterly blatant, get your todger out and pretend to be an elephant about them that I can't.

    On topic, 1 percent predicting they will be better off as a result of all the changes in the pipeline (thresholds are still frozen, f'rexample) is in the right ballpark, isn't it?
    As someone who's in the 1% and knows a lot of other people in it I can assure you that isn't the general sentiment. Most people realise that everyone has to benefit from a growing economy or its people like us who end up with our heads on spikes.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,936
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Not a great start for Kwasi and Liz's first mini budget then, most voters clearly think the changes will mainly benefit the wealthy. However we will see if it kickstarts growth and reduces the deficit as they intend

    'Conservative voters on the measures Kwasi Kwarteng announced today

    60% say it will leave people like them no better off
    58% say they will benefit wealthier people more than poorer people
    40% say will not be effective at growing the economy (only 32% think they will be effective)'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573338767879962625?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    'Do you think the changes the Chancellor announced this week will generally benefit wealthier people more, poorer people more, or benefit both equally?

    Wealthier people: 63%
    Poorer people: 3%
    Both equally: 9%'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573329167693008896?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    You were right HY!

    Bring back Boris! This lot are horrific, and Boris was a bit of a giggle wasn't he?
    Don't say you weren't warned, yes.

    This is now clearly the most rightwing government since Thatcher but without the sound money concerns of the early Thatcher years.

    Though Truss clearly went out of her way to wind up the left today, slashed taxes for the rich, slashed corporation tax, tightened conditions for universal credit and then as the icing on the cake she recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel!
    Surely there should be more to Government than trolling the left.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
  • Leon said:

    I think the most worrying thing about the dire outlook for the public finances is that all the huge spending pressures (which Kwarteng almost completely ignored) haven't gone away. Departmental spending plans, already under very severe pressure, are going to be further kiboshed by inflation. Defence spending, already looking low given Ukraine, is going to be further kiboshed by the fall in sterling relative to the US dollar. The energy-cost crisis is probably not going to disappear by the end of the current, eye-wateringly expensive, programme of Truss handouts. The NHS backlog, despite Therese Coffey's new targets, is not going to solve itself. Measures to mitigate the social care crisis are not going to be cheap.

    Will the government really be able to ignore all this and leave spending plans unchanged? I don't think so. So I rather fear that today's fiscal incontinence is not the end of the matter. Those spending pressures are going to come up against Truss ideology, and the result of that can only be yet more irresponsible borrowing,

    We may have to invade somewhere, like Putin, to distract the voters

    Start with Ireland?
    Ireland might be a bit of a stretch, given the state of our armed forces. I'd go for unveiling @HYUFD's plans for sending the tanks into Scotland and installing a puppet regime there.
    Douglas Ross & co would constitute a muppet regime..
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,210
    edited September 23
    Leon said:

    glw said:

    Driver said:

    glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Would be brutally amusing if this works just well enough to see the Tories win a majority of less than 10.
    It will be absolutely bloody hilarious if it works. Genuinely laugh out loud stuff. Record levels of egg on face if it works.

    I've no idea. I mean I get it, but I can't help thinking "but right now?" So either the whole government has gone raving mad, or I'm missing something.

    I will be delighted to have my scepticism disproved.
    The immediate reaction - markets, "experts" or polling - really is irrelevant. There's long enough until the next election that people will be able to judge if it has worked.
    That's my view. In 2 years time we'll either be talking about Kwarteng taking over mid-term, or cheering the departure of Truss.
    No, if this fails then Truss and Kwarteng go down as one, they are economic summiteers roped together

    Sunak or Boris might take over, but more likely Starmer will simply walk into No 10
    Good question.

    If a government is removed, not by men in grey suits but men in white coats, what happens next?

    There will still be a majority of Conservative MPs, but they will struggle to fill a government with uncomtaminated ministers. And whoever took over really would be Chief Lemming; a government failure that removes Truss would be unrecoverable with the public.

    But someone has to run the shop- so who? And how?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Not a great start for Kwasi and Liz's first mini budget then, most voters clearly think the changes will mainly benefit the wealthy. However we will see if it kickstarts growth and reduces the deficit as they intend

    'Conservative voters on the measures Kwasi Kwarteng announced today

    60% say it will leave people like them no better off
    58% say they will benefit wealthier people more than poorer people
    40% say will not be effective at growing the economy (only 32% think they will be effective)'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573338767879962625?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    'Do you think the changes the Chancellor announced this week will generally benefit wealthier people more, poorer people more, or benefit both equally?

    Wealthier people: 63%
    Poorer people: 3%
    Both equally: 9%'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573329167693008896?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    You were right HY!

    Bring back Boris! This lot are horrific, and Boris was a bit of a giggle wasn't he?
    Don't say you weren't warned, yes.

    This is now clearly the most rightwing government since Thatcher but without the sound money concerns of the early Thatcher years.

    Though Truss clearly went out of her way to wind up the left today, slashed taxes for the rich, slashed corporation tax, tightened conditions for universal credit and then as the icing on the cake she recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel!
    Surely there should be more to Government than trolling the left.
    Trolling the left is its own reward and now all our parties are on the left tories labour and lib dem it is such a huge target
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,849
    In the Indian restaurant. Very busy. Not too sure there are many AR taxpayers in.

    Pub previously was £4.20 for Carlsberg.

    NW London. People still going out before inflation takes over 👍
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,782

    Ed Conway
    @EdConwaySky
    ·
    1h
    If UK interest rates do indeed hit 5.5% - as markets now expect - the impact for mortgage affordability will be the worst this country has seen since the late 1980s/early 1990s.
    That was probably the worst housing crash in the modern era.
    This is not pretty at all.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 238
    Leon said:

    I wouldn't go back.

    The world always has to go forward. Life, in general, gets better.

    Unfortunately, that's really not true if you take a broader vision

    Life did not "get better" for most ordinary Europeans when the Roman Empire collapsed. It got considerably worse for about 1200-1300 years

    Life did not "get better" for an awful lot of Africans, Australian aborigines and Native Americans first encountering Europeans

    Life did not "get better" for 1bn Chinese under the new communist party of Mao

    And so on and so forth

    Life HAS got better for quite a lot of humanity since the industrial revolution - ie about the last 200 years

    But this can be seen as the aberration, and the norm is the same old same old
    i think its time we adopted the attitude of the russians under communism....each year is going to be worst than the last so live for the now....certainly since 2016 each year has been worse than the last...brexit...chaos for 3 years..then Johnson....then covid and recession and lockdowns..then ukraine war...then cost of living crisis..then run on pound
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362

    Meanwhile in Iran:

    @Joyce_Karam
    Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime


    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/1573372214833041409

    Sounds promising, but we’ve been here before.
    One day, however, the rebels WILL win. The regime cannot hold on forever. Even Soviet communism crumbled in the end

    Pray for the Iranian people that their day is coming soon
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,740
    HYUFD said:


    Struggling families in rented properties generally don't vote Tory, Truss has little interest in them therefore unlike elderly widows in big houses and bankers and home owners.

    Everybody who needs care still has to contribute £86k for it, just no more than that

    Last time I looked, elderly widows had only one vote - a struggling family might have two, three or more. It doesn't much matter - this will go one of two ways.

    The 2023 local polls may be of more than usual interest - as you'll remember, 2019 was a torrid year for local Conservatives losing 1,300 seats against Corbyn's Labour Party. The LDs were the big winners especially in the south and it'll be fascinating to see if they (and various Independent/Resident groups) can hold their gains.

    Labour have plenty of scope for progress having lost seats as well.

    I confess I thought the proposals meant up to £86k of an individual's assets remained untouched not that £86k was the maximum contribution. If you have £100k of assets, you would only contribute £14k towards care rather than only have £14k left after paying for care.

  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172


    Ed Conway
    @EdConwaySky
    ·
    1h
    If UK interest rates do indeed hit 5.5% - as markets now expect - the impact for mortgage affordability will be the worst this country has seen since the late 1980s/early 1990s.
    That was probably the worst housing crash in the modern era.
    This is not pretty at all.

    I have invested in a cardboard box company as they will need somewhere to live
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,460
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pound still falling. 1.0865 on Wall Street now.
    The weekend will be critical.

    it's scary shit

    However HMG has one big thing in its favour. In a world of war, high inflation, lingering plague, and terrific instability everywhere - from Ukraine to Iran to Sri Lanka and Latin America - where the F do you put your money?

    Yeah, Britain looks a bit wobbly. But it is still Britain. A large rich economy, with its own central bank and the rule of law, and a fine education sector, lots of cultural power, etc. When all is said and done it is still a place worth lending to

    Because the alternatives aren't obvious. America? What if Trump wins in 2024? It is hideously divided. Germany is usually reliable, but is now expecting to take a 4% hit to GDP this year, due to Putin. France, hmm. Italy awks. You can only buy so many Swiss Francs

    Japan and Korea are in the Taiwan war zone. And so on and so forth
    The worry is that our risk premium is now well above what it was before this event and markets may take time to adjust to the new reality resulting in a short term debt crisis because the BoE is also unloading £80bn worth of gilts alongside the government which needs to raise about £200bn in cash over the next year or so.
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 498
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
  • Perhaps the thing that struck me most today was exempting stamp duty on first time buyers up to £425k.

    £425k gets you a very nice house in any 'red wall' constituency.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,782
    Emergency BoE meeting Monday??
  • I think I among others suggested HMQ deceased might quite quickly become yesterday's chip papers. Wasn't expecting to be quite so prescient..
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,825
    Hang on, did they actually give those earning over £150k a tax break in the middle of the cost of living crisis?
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 238
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pound still falling. 1.0865 on Wall Street now.
    The weekend will be critical.

    it's scary shit

    However HMG has one big thing in its favour. In a world of war, high inflation, lingering plague, and terrific instability everywhere - from Ukraine to Iran to Sri Lanka and Latin America - where the F do you put your money?

    Yeah, Britain looks a bit wobbly. But it is still Britain. A large rich economy, with its own central bank and the rule of law, and a fine education sector, lots of cultural power, etc. When all is said and done it is still a place worth lending to

    Because the alternatives aren't obvious. America? What if Trump wins in 2024? It is hideously divided. Germany is usually reliable, but is now expecting to take a 4% hit to GDP this year, due to Putin. France, hmm. Italy awks. You can only buy so many Swiss Francs

    Japan and Korea are in the Taiwan war zone. And so on and so forth
    one danger to this would be if the economy truly tanked and a populist hard right party were to take power....seems unlikely now but who knows...if the tories become totally discredited a space will open on the right flank
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,701

    Surely no sane Tory MPs thinks he can sell today's lark on the doorstep. This is longest-suicide-note-in-history stuff. I suspect there'll be a move against Liz soon enough, and her brief tenure will be explained away as some sort of systemic glitch.

    Could be, but remember people said the same thing about Mrs Thatcher in 1980!
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,016
    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362
    These Iranian protests look deeply serious

    Tehran tonight


    Tehran, Iran. Tonight 23rd Sep. Conflict between Iranian protestors and Islamic republic forces. #MahsaAmini #OpIran #مهسا_امینی


    https://twitter.com/YasharWindy/status/1573369202945171456?s=20&t=mHqMfd51AvvzCveqoKrKsg

    Sounds like live rounds being fired

    There are hundreds of videos like this
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    That might explain to some extent the NHS....however every service seems to provide less for more money
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,859
    Jonathan said:

    Hang on, did they actually give those earning over £150k a tax break in the middle of the cost of living crisis?

    Yes in order to boost the economy.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,460
    Jonathan said:

    Hang on, did they actually give those earning over £150k a tax break in the middle of the cost of living crisis?

    Yes, our CEO will be £130k better off as a result I think.
  • Perhaps the thing that struck me most today was exempting stamp duty on first time buyers up to £425k.

    £425k gets you a very nice house in any 'red wall' constituency.

    First time buyers aren't going to be buying a house that requires a £60k deposit when they're paying 40% of their wages in rent. House prices being hugely overinflated is a big problem - young people getting fleeced through rent so they can't accumulate capital is an even bigger one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,905
    Fishing said:

    Surely no sane Tory MPs thinks he can sell today's lark on the doorstep. This is longest-suicide-note-in-history stuff. I suspect there'll be a move against Liz soon enough, and her brief tenure will be explained away as some sort of systemic glitch.

    Could be, but remember people said the same thing about Mrs Thatcher in 1980!
    Though Thatcher had just defeated a failing Labour government and was facing Foot not Starmer
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,015
    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    People getting fatter is actually good for the nhs. Studies have shown that smokers, drinkers and the obese have less lifetime health costs than the healthy living. They tend to die younger and spend less time in that "lots of care" portion and thats before we even figure in savings on pensions
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,292
    I'm just watching a video of my old school playing Ipswich in a rugby match. I'm not into rugby, and couldn't play it at school, but I watched a fair few matches during my years there. Perhaps it's my age and failures of memory, but the players of both sides appear much more 'professional' than their equivalents thirty years ago. But as I'm not into rugby that might just be me...

    We're currently narrowly losing.

    And isn't it marvelous that we can watch an incredibly minor schools match complete with commentators.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362

    I think I among others suggested HMQ deceased might quite quickly become yesterday's chip papers. Wasn't expecting to be quite so prescient..

    Yes, fair play. I confess I have already forgotten THE QUEUE
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,206
    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,676
    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Not a great start for Kwasi and Liz's first mini budget then, most voters clearly think the changes will mainly benefit the wealthy. However we will see if it kickstarts growth and reduces the deficit as they intend

    'Conservative voters on the measures Kwasi Kwarteng announced today

    60% say it will leave people like them no better off
    58% say they will benefit wealthier people more than poorer people
    40% say will not be effective at growing the economy (only 32% think they will be effective)'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573338767879962625?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    'Do you think the changes the Chancellor announced this week will generally benefit wealthier people more, poorer people more, or benefit both equally?

    Wealthier people: 63%
    Poorer people: 3%
    Both equally: 9%'

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1573329167693008896?s=20&t=e_Bhssrw7ZOhSvlRrQSpmA

    You were right HY!

    Bring back Boris! This lot are horrific, and Boris was a bit of a giggle wasn't he?
    Don't say you weren't warned, yes.

    This is now clearly the most rightwing government since Thatcher but without the sound money concerns of the early Thatcher years.

    Though Truss clearly went out of her way to wind up the left today, slashed taxes for the rich, slashed corporation tax, tightened conditions for universal credit and then as the icing on the cake she recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel!
    Surely there should be more to Government than trolling the left.
    Trolling the left is its own reward and now all our parties are on the left tories labour and lib dem it is such a huge target
    You do have to say ... regardless of personal politics ... that the shock and awe in the Guardian today was a sight to see. After 12 years of moaning about the end of the world under posh metro centrist chancellors, discovering that there was actually a whole territory to the right seemed to be impossible to bear for Guardianistas going apoplectic about a budget that didn't involve sponging people with good incomes, people who work in banks, and the like.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,740
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I can't speak for the NHS but I'll give you four thoughts from my dealings with local councils of all political stripes and none:

    1) Central Government is eager to push responsibility down but without the finance to support that responsibility, If a council is told to take on a new task and has no money provide then it has to use its own reserves.

    2) Inflation within the care sector always runs ahead of national RPI or CPI figures - costs of specialist equipment, medicines and the like are always above headline inflation - why I'm less certain.

    3) Some councils have tried to play the property investment market hoping big rental yields would provide extra revenue - hasn't really worked and complicated further by lack of demand for office and rental space as well as their own underused offices needing light and heat.

    4) At some Councils (not all by any means) some of the elected Senior members are more interested in the trappings of power - having officers run around after them and enjoying the power (such as it is). At others, the members are run by the Senior Officers who tell them what to do in the form of "recommendations" within Cabinet reports. The relationship between the Council Leader and CEO is absolutely vital.

    Every Council I know is worried about the financial future and some are already scenario planning for big cuts in Government support.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 238
    pound just hit 1.0840 to dollar in us trading....dow jones index following pound in lockstep at moment...dow down 700 now
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,507
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,206
    Leon said:

    These Iranian protests look deeply serious

    Tehran tonight


    Tehran, Iran. Tonight 23rd Sep. Conflict between Iranian protestors and Islamic republic forces. #MahsaAmini #OpIran #مهسا_امینی


    https://twitter.com/YasharWindy/status/1573369202945171456?s=20&t=mHqMfd51AvvzCveqoKrKsg

    Sounds like live rounds being fired

    There are hundreds of videos like this

    And the big difference from the last few times is that people are fighting back. Like in the maidan in Ukraine in 2014.

    Sad to say, peaceful protests rarely seem to cut it in dictatorships.

    I wonder if part of the driver is ironically patriarchal views. You see the police attacking a man, you might film it or shout. You see them attacking your sister or wife and you step in and fight.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,936
    GIN1138 said:

    I bet SKS can't believe his luck at this shit show of a government though things get tricky for him when he gets into power and actually has to try and clear up this mess.

    Are you going to be voting for the b****** when his manifesto offers you tax rises and Liz offers you more cuts? No, I thought not.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,507

    Perhaps the thing that struck me most today was exempting stamp duty on first time buyers up to £425k.

    £425k gets you a very nice house in any 'red wall' constituency.

    Not likely to be a FTB though there.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,292
    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    "We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented."

    You wanted to die? ;)
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,206
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    These Iranian protests look deeply serious

    Tehran tonight


    Tehran, Iran. Tonight 23rd Sep. Conflict between Iranian protestors and Islamic republic forces. #MahsaAmini #OpIran #مهسا_امینی


    https://twitter.com/YasharWindy/status/1573369202945171456?s=20&t=mHqMfd51AvvzCveqoKrKsg

    Sounds like live rounds being fired

    There are hundreds of videos like this

    And the big difference from the last few times is that people are fighting back. Like in the maidan in Ukraine in 2014.

    Sad to say, peaceful protests rarely seem to cut it in dictatorships.

    I wonder if part of the driver is ironically patriarchal views. You see the police attacking a man, you might film it or shout. You see them attacking your sister or wife and you step in and fight.
    But the protesters need a leader. A alternative government. That’s the big thing lacking.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,206
    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,373
    Fishing said:

    Surely no sane Tory MPs thinks he can sell today's lark on the doorstep. This is longest-suicide-note-in-history stuff. I suspect there'll be a move against Liz soon enough, and her brief tenure will be explained away as some sort of systemic glitch.

    Could be, but remember people said the same thing about Mrs Thatcher in 1980!
    She reversed course VERY rapidly.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,740
    Leon said:


    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    That's the Conservative vote share down to 10% (plus or minus you).
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,676
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    Put even more simply: inflation is a mix of everything. Some things got cheaper in the last decades with technology and trade, like computers that are now far better for the price in the form of an iPhone than a BBC Micro was, so they bring down the average and inflation on everything else has been running above average.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
    I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
  • Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    Leon,

    I don't wish to be personal but is it not the case that these days you yourself struggle to pass the swimming costume test?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
    I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
    here is one for example
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/

    quote from article
    "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,261
    MaxPB said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Which is fine, realistically we need 6 years of 2% over trend growth to just get back to the absolute tax take we have today. I don't see how this will give us 3.5-4% annual growth rates. We're betting the house on this but we've probably backed the wrong horse. I have no ideological issue with cutting taxes to stimulate growth, the taxes that have been cut are not going to deliver the extra growth because it doesn't deliver business investment and that's where the UK economy has been struggling for 15 years. The personal tax burden is actually not bad compared to our competitor nations, it's the business investment environment. This splurge does absolutely nothing to fix it.
    This
  • Foxy said:

    Perhaps the thing that struck me most today was exempting stamp duty on first time buyers up to £425k.

    £425k gets you a very nice house in any 'red wall' constituency.

    Not likely to be a FTB though there.
    Its effectively a tax cut for Mole Valley which is irrelevant for Rother Valley.

    A blue wall focus.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,507
    edited September 23
    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    I don't think so. The life expectancy gap between top and bottom decides is 7 years but the healthy life expectancy is 20 years.

    Poor people are fatter, more likely to smoke etc, but have more years in Ill health. In addition they are less likely to be continuing in work or to be able to pay for your own care:


  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,362

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    Leon,

    I don't wish to be personal but is it not the case that these days you yourself struggle to pass the swimming costume test?
    No, I'm quite fit

    Alcoholic, slothful, given to manic/depressive fits, and besieged by tumultuous life events, but quite buff, for my advanced years
  • Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
    Wonder if the obese pay more or less tax over their lifetimes?

    Instinctively I would say less. More likely to be in lower economic class, higher incidence of sick days, health problems leading to unemployment. But now we've the sugar tax maybe times are changing.
  • Here's a small contribution toward tax fairness in the UK: https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/u/unfair_taxation.asp

    (Bird watchers would support that idea, I believe.)
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.

    So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.

    Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.

    This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.

    That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
    The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
    I don't think so. The life expectancy gap between top and bottom decides is 7 years but the healthy life expectancy is 20 years.

    Poor people are fatter, more likely to smoke etc, but have more years in Ill health. In addition they are less likely to be continuing in work or to be able to pay for your own care:


    I have posted studies that show total life time health care costs are lower for the obese , smokers and drinkers.....you have posted you dont think so . I suggest you find a study showing total lifetime care costs are greater before claiming I am wrong. And as I said that is without taking into consideration the reduction in paying pensions for less years
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,708
    MaxPB said:

    moonshine said:

    We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.

    They'll tell themselves that when we have the first bond sale failure in the next few weeks. We stuck it to those bond traders!
    This is melodramatic
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,292
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    Leon,

    I don't wish to be personal but is it not the case that these days you yourself struggle to pass the swimming costume test?
    No, I'm quite fit

    Alcoholic, slothful, given to manic/depressive fits, and besieged by tumultuous life events, but quite buff, for my advanced years
    You were complaining about taking a short walk along a beach a few weeks ago!

    Here's a challenge for you, and one that might do you some good: if I'm still managing to, come and do an (unofficial) marathon with me this time next year. Work up to it. Put the effort in. Feel the achievement. Challenge yourself.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,947
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pound still falling. 1.0865 on Wall Street now.
    The weekend will be critical.

    it's scary shit

    However HMG has one big thing in its favour. In a world of war, high inflation, lingering plague, and terrific instability everywhere - from Ukraine to Iran to Sri Lanka and Latin America - where the F do you put your money?

    Yeah, Britain looks a bit wobbly. But it is still Britain. A large rich economy, with its own central bank and the rule of law, and a fine education sector, lots of cultural power, etc. When all is said and done it is still a place worth lending to

    Because the alternatives aren't obvious. America? What if Trump wins in 2024? It is hideously divided. Germany is usually reliable, but is now expecting to take a 4% hit to GDP this year, due to Putin. France, hmm. Italy awks. You can only buy so many Swiss Francs

    Japan and Korea are in the Taiwan war zone. And so on and so forth
    The worry is that our risk premium is now well above what it was before this event and markets may take time to adjust to the new reality resulting in a short term debt crisis because the BoE is also unloading £80bn worth of gilts alongside the government which needs to raise about £200bn in cash over the next year or so.
    The BoE have launched a new borrowing product, Tarnished Gilts.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    Leon,

    I don't wish to be personal but is it not the case that these days you yourself struggle to pass the swimming costume test?
    No, I'm quite fit

    Alcoholic, slothful, given to manic/depressive fits, and besieged by tumultuous life events, but quite buff, for my advanced years
    You were complaining about taking a short walk along a beach a few weeks ago!

    Here's a challenge for you, and one that might do you some good: if I'm still managing to, come and do an (unofficial) marathon with me this time next year. Work up to it. Put the effort in. Feel the achievement. Challenge yourself.
    Alternatively I can lend him a crossbow to finish it
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,947
    I don’t think today’s announcements will affect me personally. However, indirectly I expect to be helping my children pay their mortgages.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,947

    Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
    We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.

    The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.

    Neither of these problems have easy answers.
    The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
    No, we should have let Covid rip through

    We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks

    Leon,

    I don't wish to be personal but is it not the case that these days you yourself struggle to pass the swimming costume test?
    Having seen him in a skimpy bikini, the answer to your question is yes.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,708
    Leon said:

    Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime

    It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing

    Iran as a thriving, young, modern Islamic democracy would be quite the prize for the world. Fingers crossed.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,172

    I don’t think today’s announcements will affect me personally. However, indirectly I expect to be helping my children pay their mortgages.

    Did you miss the internment of scots announcement?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,054
    edited September 23
    Leon said:

    Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime

    It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing

    Could also see a domino effect. It would be a fillip for Russian dissidents: mobilise, take the streets. If you’ve got the numbers, you can win.

    Belorussia too, of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.