Howdy, Stranger!

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

It’s very hard to see Truss doing a U-Turn – politicalbetting.com

2

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Talking about housing costs, Westmnster Toris have still been trying to exclude the poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/oct/02/luxury-flats-richest-people-social-housing-hinduja-old-war-office

    '"The Hinduja brothers, named by the Sunday Times as the wealthiest people in Britain with a £28.5bn fortune, won approval to develop the historic Old War Office near Downing Street into 85 luxury flats and a 120-room five-star Raffles hotel.

    The Guardian can reveal that the OWO development – in which one four bedroom flat has sold for more than £40m – should under planning rules contain 8,000 square metres of affordable housing – enough for 98 flats.

    However, Westminster city council agreed to allow the Hindujas to develop the building with no affordable housing after their agents claimed that it would “not be economically feasible” to do so. [...]

    The documents show that the OWO development on Whitehall has a “7870.75sqm shortfall in affordable housing” and “the policy compliant payment generated by the scheme is £39.6m”.

    However, the Hindujas’ agent offered only a “£10m contribution” to the affordable housing fund. At the time of the application in 2017, the then Conservative-run council’s “viability consultant” said the suggested donation was “generous”.'

    And the consequences of that minor donation is that `Westminster council is labour held and will be forever going forward.
    Hadn't been following the news there - did it really have that much impact?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938

    FPT

    glw said:

    kle4 said:

    which is not a good thing . The Uk is likely to be a big target if this escalates thanks to Johnson wanting to be Churchill. Truss was stupid as well at the start with her urging of Brits to go and fight

    Fighting fascism is always a good thing.
    inane comment that was applicable 80 years ago before nukes - you have to be more realpolitik today of course
    The realpolitik is that if you aren't prepared to defend democracy against authoritarianism then you will lose democracy.

    Not much chance of the state leaving you alone when it's a dictatorship.
    Russia was not a threat to the Uk before this - it is now- its hard to tell on here but in the real Uk not many give a toss about Ukraine at all save to worry about the Uk becoming a target. There are a lot of military and war obsessives on here (witness the glee of retweeting twitter when a tank or helicoptor was blown up ) , in reality people care much more about their own families and indeed thousands of years of british civilisation and culture to want to risk it in inane visions of fighting dictators etc
    "A small country far away about which we know little"

    Remind me, how did that work out last time?
    yeah remind me who had nuclear weapons in 1939? We cannot rely on historical precedents before a time of nuclear warfare
    An argument that completely ignores the fact we were facing an existential crisis just as severe as now. The only difference is the manner of the execution.
    Honestly, I'm more frightened when I encounter an angry toad in the back garden, than I am of Russian military might.

    This is one call that the government got entirely right.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,109
    FPT - I've placed next PM bets on Gove at 40/1, Wallace at 25/1, Raab at 66/1 and May at 100/1 today. Value.

    I won't be Boris. That's just hopecasting.

    It could be Rishi but I'm not buying at current odds.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    The fact that you’re not paying any income tax in the UK makes the case for Liz Truss’s policy approach.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    pigeon said:

    Health service implosion update: 22 hours since the ambulance was originally summoned, and 14 hours since it actually arrived to collect her, mother-in-law is still sat in the back of it as it remains parked outside the hospital.

    The NHS is way past the creaking and groaning stage. It's a heap of rubble.

    I don’t really agree with this, but I understand your frustration. Sadly the system is under stress and your m-in-l is at one of the worst pinch points.
    My mother-in-law had the same issue. Once she was admitted a mixture of incompetence and neglect hastened her end, so getting in is no panacea... :(
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,200
    Carnyx said:

    Talking about housing costs, Westmnster Toris have still been trying to exclude the poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/oct/02/luxury-flats-richest-people-social-housing-hinduja-old-war-office

    '"The Hinduja brothers, named by the Sunday Times as the wealthiest people in Britain with a £28.5bn fortune, won approval to develop the historic Old War Office near Downing Street into 85 luxury flats and a 120-room five-star Raffles hotel.

    The Guardian can reveal that the OWO development – in which one four bedroom flat has sold for more than £40m – should under planning rules contain 8,000 square metres of affordable housing – enough for 98 flats.

    However, Westminster city council agreed to allow the Hindujas to develop the building with no affordable housing after their agents claimed that it would “not be economically feasible” to do so. [...]

    The documents show that the OWO development on Whitehall has a “7870.75sqm shortfall in affordable housing” and “the policy compliant payment generated by the scheme is £39.6m”.

    However, the Hindujas’ agent offered only a “£10m contribution” to the affordable housing fund. At the time of the application in 2017, the then Conservative-run council’s “viability consultant” said the suggested donation was “generous”.'

    I was about to post the same article.
    It is believable that they could not to fund affordable housing because the build cost of this type of development is so high.
    However, in this particular case, if the policy was just 'you have to provide 8000 sqm of affordable housing and you can't f*ck around with viability negotiations' then they (or someone else) would have almost certainly found a way to do it, possibly after buying the site for less.

    The reason why developers can cite viability, is because of national planning policy, which has been developed by the Conservative government over the last 12 years.



  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    The fact that you’re not paying any income tax in the UK makes the case for Liz Truss’s policy approach.
    If she got tax right, every banker from here to Aldebaran would be working in the City of London, you mean?
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,964

    FPT - I've placed next PM bets on Gove at 40/1, Wallace at 25/1, Raab at 66/1 and May at 100/1 today. Value.

    I won't be Boris. That's just hopecasting.

    It could be Rishi but I'm not buying at current odds.

    Good calls in my opinion. Especially May.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 515
    DougSeal said:

    One thing Starmer has done is wrest back control of his party. At one point I was sure it had to split into Socialist/Social Democrat parties. Who’s going to do that for the Tories? In retrospect Johnson was the only thing holding them together.

    The thing that will hold them together is the same thing that has held Labour together -- the FPTP system. The consequences of splitting off are so obviously disastrous that it won't happen.


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    edited October 2
    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    Talking about housing costs, Westmnster Toris have still been trying to exclude the poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/oct/02/luxury-flats-richest-people-social-housing-hinduja-old-war-office

    '"The Hinduja brothers, named by the Sunday Times as the wealthiest people in Britain with a £28.5bn fortune, won approval to develop the historic Old War Office near Downing Street into 85 luxury flats and a 120-room five-star Raffles hotel.

    The Guardian can reveal that the OWO development – in which one four bedroom flat has sold for more than £40m – should under planning rules contain 8,000 square metres of affordable housing – enough for 98 flats.

    However, Westminster city council agreed to allow the Hindujas to develop the building with no affordable housing after their agents claimed that it would “not be economically feasible” to do so. [...]

    The documents show that the OWO development on Whitehall has a “7870.75sqm shortfall in affordable housing” and “the policy compliant payment generated by the scheme is £39.6m”.

    However, the Hindujas’ agent offered only a “£10m contribution” to the affordable housing fund. At the time of the application in 2017, the then Conservative-run council’s “viability consultant” said the suggested donation was “generous”.'

    I was about to post the same article.
    It is believable that they could not to fund affordable housing because the build cost of this type of development is so high.
    However, in this particular case, if the policy was just 'you have to provide 8000 sqm of affordable housing and you can't f*ck around with viability negotiations' then they (or someone else) would have almost certainly found a way to do it, possibly after buying the site for less.

    The reason why developers can cite viability, is because of national planning policy, which has been developed by the Conservative government over the last 12 years.



    Mm. It was also that even then the rules said £x to the council house fund as an alternative - but they only paid little more than a quarter, for no clear reason. As the Graun said,

    'The council is now trying to buy back former council flats in order to increase its housing stock. The average cost of an ex-council two-bedroom flat in the borough was about £500,000. That means the £10m could buy up to 20 flats. If the developer had paid the expected £39.6m it could have bought about 80 flats.'

    But obvs better to have more new "ordinary" flats.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,323
    This Leeds Villa game is a bit tasty
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
  • WillGWillG Posts: 515

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    The fact that you’re not paying any income tax in the UK makes the case for Liz Truss’s policy approach.
    Very few Brits that have moved to the US because of slight changes in tax bands. And those that do don't move to California. It is much more due to higher productivity in the US increasing base incomes, better weather and more spacious homes and neighbourhoods.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,200
    edited October 2
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Talking about housing costs, Westmnster Toris have still been trying to exclude the poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/oct/02/luxury-flats-richest-people-social-housing-hinduja-old-war-office

    '"The Hinduja brothers, named by the Sunday Times as the wealthiest people in Britain with a £28.5bn fortune, won approval to develop the historic Old War Office near Downing Street into 85 luxury flats and a 120-room five-star Raffles hotel.

    The Guardian can reveal that the OWO development – in which one four bedroom flat has sold for more than £40m – should under planning rules contain 8,000 square metres of affordable housing – enough for 98 flats.

    However, Westminster city council agreed to allow the Hindujas to develop the building with no affordable housing after their agents claimed that it would “not be economically feasible” to do so. [...]

    The documents show that the OWO development on Whitehall has a “7870.75sqm shortfall in affordable housing” and “the policy compliant payment generated by the scheme is £39.6m”.

    However, the Hindujas’ agent offered only a “£10m contribution” to the affordable housing fund. At the time of the application in 2017, the then Conservative-run council’s “viability consultant” said the suggested donation was “generous”.'

    And the consequences of that minor donation is that `Westminster council is labour held and will be forever going forward.
    Hadn't been following the news there - did it really have that much impact?
    I think the £10 million is a commuted payment in lieu of affordable housing on site - about £30 million less than is demanded by the policy. But it isn't a dodgy donation, as could be implied.

    There was a 'scandal' involving 'gifts' to the formal chair of planning committee at Westminster Council, but it was misrepresented by the media. He made questionable judgements about how close he got to developers, but there was nothing illegal going on.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/08/westminster-deputy-leader-took-gifts-in-50-of-his-planning-cases

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,775
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    One alumnus n'est ce pas?

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    The fact that you’re not paying any income tax in the UK makes the case for Liz Truss’s policy approach.
    If she got tax right, every banker from here to Aldebaran would be working in the City of London, you mean?
    At the margins, people's decisions are influenced by the tax regime. This is something that everyone who's ever made the "race to the bottom" argument implicitly accepts.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,770
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
    On 5 I’m sure it’s going to come - it’s unavoidable
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,454
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    Ok... if that is your best argument, let me deal with it like this: If 56% tax is good enough for Finland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?

    Any other pointless comparisons we need to be looking at?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    Keynes thought that by now, we'd be working about twenty hours a week. It turns out that people want money more than leisure.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,347
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
    yet that's the marginal rate once your personal allowance gets clawed back, even higher if you still paying back student loans
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    Ok... if that is your best argument, let me deal with it like this: If 56% tax is good enough for Finland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?

    Any other pointless comparisons we need to be looking at?
    Finland isn't a direct competitor in quite the same way.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,775

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    Ok... if that is your best argument, let me deal with it like this: If 56% tax is good enough for Finland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?

    Any other pointless comparisons we need to be looking at?
    The elasticity of the tax base with respect to the tax rate varies between countries. Quite high in Ireland, less so in Finland.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    edited October 2

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    It is going to be a wrench. More so for people that enjoy their jobs - seeing them taken away by AI will be cruel. It will be particularly hard for creative people. Artists. It is why people who paint and draw for a living (or even a hobby) get so scatalogically furious when they see what AI can do already, why they react with sweary anger - “this art is shit” etc etc

    AI is better at art than 99% of humans, very soon it will be better than 99.9999%, maybe 100%

    In a few years the same will be true of writers, sculptors, designers, everyone. That’s a lot of life-purpose destroyed
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
    This is the big con that has been pulled for decades. In effect the Government is already taking 50%, if not of your earnings, then of the cost of employing you to the company once you take NI and things like the apprenticeship levy into account. And that is before you start looking at the taxes you then pay once you actually try to spend those earnings.

    We need to merge tax and NI as part of making the whole issue of personal taxation far more transparent. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion about what the right level of taxation is for the individual.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    “1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.”

    Just to clarify So you wouldn’t have given actual.money handouts, but voucher handouts for money off bills or towards insulation or green energy upgrades? That would be a lot less regressive than the nonsense lazy thinking from all UKs political parties on this so far with “Energy price cap costing 6,5 of GDP” to indiscriminately throw money at voters. So what happened for this 6.5 gdp madness to be adopted and then boasted about in adverts - politicians too cowardly to stand up to Martin Lewis and the media to say No! Not “everyone” needs a big hand out?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,112
    NEW and WOW: Steve Baker, former head of ERG apologises to Ireland and the EU for “not always behaving” in a way that they would “trust us” in Brexit negotiations . “I am really sorry about that because relations with Ireland are not where they should be”
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1576609125919649794
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,775
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    Keynes thought that by now, we'd be working about twenty hours a week. It turns out that people want money more than leisure.
    Better to say they want both as they are complements in consumption though substitutes in production.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,454
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    It is going to be a wrench. More so for people that enjoy their jobs - seeing them taken away by AI will be cruel. It will be particularly hard for creative people. Artists. It is why people who paint and draw for a living (or even a hobby) get so scatalogically furious when they see what AI can do already, why they react with sweary anger - “this art is shit” etc etc

    AI is better at art than 99% of humans, very soon it will be better than 99.9999%, maybe 100%

    In a few years the same will be true of writers, sculptors, designers, everyone. That’s a lot of life-purpose destroyed
    I contend that new jobs will arise though. We make new technology, it closes out some jobs, new ones arise. Time was almost all people worked the land for food. Now, in the U.K. at lest, almost no one does.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 515

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    That's not the reason we are still working. The reason is that automation usually complements activity rather than replaces it. And as it gets better, it makes the human work much more productive, meaning the rewards for work are much greater. In general, you get much more luxury in the 2020s from working full time than you did in the 1950s. You get fantastic entertainment on demand, holidays abroad, cleaner houses with labour-saving devices, better tasting food. The only reason this isn't more obvious is because the cost of housing is so much more because successive governments have mismanaged population growth and housing can't keep up.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,454
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW and WOW: Steve Baker, former head of ERG apologises to Ireland and the EU for “not always behaving” in a way that they would “trust us” in Brexit negotiations . “I am really sorry about that because relations with Ireland are not where they should be”
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1576609125919649794

    A good thing to do. Perhaps the EU and Ireland might reciprocate?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286
    Well done on putting up an 11/1 winner in Sergio Perez.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    Keynes thought that by now, we'd be working about twenty hours a week. It turns out that people want money more than leisure.
    No. By and large, people work whatever hours they need to in order to get by.

    My experience, in an environment where flexible hours are accommodated, is that many older workers go part time the nanosecond they can afford to do so. If my financial circumstances don't get substantially worse then I shall likely do that myself.

    If you're struggling to get by or flat broke then your life is bound to end up revolving around money. We're going to see more and more of that in the coming years because the country is getting poorer. It's not that people necessarily work themselves into the ground because they *want* money to spend on iPhones or Rolexes, it's because they *need* the money as they can't survive without it.

    Most people *want* to spend as little time working as possible.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    Scott_xP said:

    “The only sort of leader more dangerous than the rogue the UK used to have is the zealot it has now.” @martinwolf_, not holding back https://www.ft.com/content/510948e9-3c33-42c5-929e-b97c953dc767 https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1576596047941447680/photo/1


    If the Labour and Lib Dem coalition had tried to borrow a quarter of a trillion for their regressive energy market freeze for two and half years policy, would they have been given a free pass by the markets and IMF?

    This is why the economics journalism, like the Martin Wolff piece below, is so lazy - the fundamentals of UK economy and our borrowing position/UK credit card right now doesn’t allow any government, whatever their idea’s, to have a free pass to do whatever they want. Wolff went there himself before walking away from the fact, the “rescue of an ill regulated pensions industry.” It wasn’t the mini budget that suddenly caused an ill regulated pension industry, its but one symptom of underlying weaknesses building in there for a while all UK governments of all idea’s and colours will have to tip toe around and struggle with.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,454
    WillG said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    That's not the reason we are still working. The reason is that automation usually complements activity rather than replaces it. And as it gets better, it makes the human work much more productive, meaning the rewards for work are much greater. In general, you get much more luxury in the 2020s from working full time than you did in the 1950s. You get fantastic entertainment on demand, holidays abroad, cleaner houses with labour-saving devices, better tasting food. The only reason this isn't more obvious is because the cost of housing is so much more because successive governments have mismanaged population growth and housing can't keep up.
    But we only get one go at living. Why isn’t working fewer hours a target?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,200
    edited October 2
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    Talking about housing costs, Westmnster Toris have still been trying to exclude the poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/oct/02/luxury-flats-richest-people-social-housing-hinduja-old-war-office

    '"The Hinduja brothers, named by the Sunday Times as the wealthiest people in Britain with a £28.5bn fortune, won approval to develop the historic Old War Office near Downing Street into 85 luxury flats and a 120-room five-star Raffles hotel.

    The Guardian can reveal that the OWO development – in which one four bedroom flat has sold for more than £40m – should under planning rules contain 8,000 square metres of affordable housing – enough for 98 flats.

    However, Westminster city council agreed to allow the Hindujas to develop the building with no affordable housing after their agents claimed that it would “not be economically feasible” to do so. [...]

    The documents show that the OWO development on Whitehall has a “7870.75sqm shortfall in affordable housing” and “the policy compliant payment generated by the scheme is £39.6m”.

    However, the Hindujas’ agent offered only a “£10m contribution” to the affordable housing fund. At the time of the application in 2017, the then Conservative-run council’s “viability consultant” said the suggested donation was “generous”.'

    I was about to post the same article.
    It is believable that they could not to fund affordable housing because the build cost of this type of development is so high.
    However, in this particular case, if the policy was just 'you have to provide 8000 sqm of affordable housing and you can't f*ck around with viability negotiations' then they (or someone else) would have almost certainly found a way to do it, possibly after buying the site for less.

    The reason why developers can cite viability, is because of national planning policy, which has been developed by the Conservative government over the last 12 years.



    Mm. It was also that even then the rules said £x to the council house fund as an alternative - but they only paid little more than a quarter, for no clear reason. As the Graun said,

    'The council is now trying to buy back former council flats in order to increase its housing stock. The average cost of an ex-council two-bedroom flat in the borough was about £500,000. That means the £10m could buy up to 20 flats. If the developer had paid the expected £39.6m it could have bought about 80 flats.'

    But obvs better to have more new "ordinary" flats.
    You are being misled by sensationalism here. The 'rules' allow the developer to reduce the payment if it is supported by a 'viability statement' showing that it is not possible. The Council then appoint their own viability consultant to review the statement and advise whether it is correct. In this case the Council's own viability consultant agreed with what the developer advised. It sounds dodgy but it is how the planning system works and has done so for 20+ years.

    The guardian have done some good investigative journalism on this process over the last decade, search for articles by its architecture correspondent Oliver Wainwright on 'viability'; but those quoted above are just going down the clickbait route.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,454
    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    Keynes thought that by now, we'd be working about twenty hours a week. It turns out that people want money more than leisure.
    No. By and large, people work whatever hours they need to in order to get by.

    My experience, in an environment where flexible hours are accommodated, is that many older workers go part time the nanosecond they can afford to do so. If my financial circumstances don't get substantially worse then I shall likely do that myself.

    If you're struggling to get by or flat broke then your life is bound to end up revolving around money. We're going to see more and more of that in the coming years because the country is getting poorer. It's not that people necessarily work themselves into the ground because they *want* money to spend on iPhones or Rolexes, it's because they *need* the money as they can't survive without it.

    Most people *want* to spend as little time working as possible.
    It possibly depends where you work. At uni I exist among people who never want to retire - research is their life.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,112
    Imagine having to take a entire full page ad because @trussliz spent an entire local media round earlier this week not being truthful and misleading the public #ToryConference #ConservativePartyconference https://twitter.com/drummertomuk/status/1576591365148127232/photo/1
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    I can't find the numbers for France, but per capita growth is going to be in the region of 1-1.5% since 2000.

    For the US it's 1.2% from 2000-09, and 1.5% from 2010-19.
    For Japan, it's 0.3% from 200-09, 1.2% from 2010-19
    For Italy, it's 0.2% in both decades.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,660
    Mr. 64, thanks, and it's understandable not following a tip given how the last couple went.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    I can't find the numbers for France, but per capita growth is going to be in the region of 1-1.5% since 2000.

    For the US it's 1.2% from 2000-09, and 1.5% from 2010-19.
    For Japan, it's 0.3% from 200-09, 1.2% from 2010-19
    For Italy, it's 0.2% in both decades.
    Shocking Italian figures. And you can see it when you go there

    Tuscany no longer feels really “wealthy” like other parts of Western Europe. Which is dismal when you consider its natural advantages

    It’s not great that Britain is becoming more like Italy
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    Keynes thought that by now, we'd be working about twenty hours a week. It turns out that people want money more than leisure.
    No. By and large, people work whatever hours they need to in order to get by.

    My experience, in an environment where flexible hours are accommodated, is that many older workers go part time the nanosecond they can afford to do so. If my financial circumstances don't get substantially worse then I shall likely do that myself.

    If you're struggling to get by or flat broke then your life is bound to end up revolving around money. We're going to see more and more of that in the coming years because the country is getting poorer. It's not that people necessarily work themselves into the ground because they *want* money to spend on iPhones or Rolexes, it's because they *need* the money as they can't survive without it.

    Most people *want* to spend as little time working as possible.
    Peoples' expectations of what is needed to get by head inexorably upwards.

    That's why the standard of living enjoyed by a professional person in the 1920's is not remotely sufficient for the vast majority of people today, which is what would have surprised Keynes.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
    The household price cap solution cannot be used on business, for there is no cap for business - it actually has to be two different solutions, households and business.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    Keynes thought that by now, we'd be working about twenty hours a week. It turns out that people want money more than leisure.
    No. By and large, people work whatever hours they need to in order to get by.

    My experience, in an environment where flexible hours are accommodated, is that many older workers go part time the nanosecond they can afford to do so. If my financial circumstances don't get substantially worse then I shall likely do that myself.

    If you're struggling to get by or flat broke then your life is bound to end up revolving around money. We're going to see more and more of that in the coming years because the country is getting poorer. It's not that people necessarily work themselves into the ground because they *want* money to spend on iPhones or Rolexes, it's because they *need* the money as they can't survive without it.

    Most people *want* to spend as little time working as possible.
    It possibly depends where you work. At uni I exist among people who never want to retire - research is their life.
    I did say "by and large." I know some people feel they have a vocation and genuinely enjoy their work. For most of the population, it's a case of various shades of drudgery, from the relatively lucky amongst us who find it mostly quite tolerable to those who absolutely loathe every second of it. Tales of folk still going into the office or cleaning loos *after* they've won enormous lottery prizes are noteworthy because (a) they're very rare and (b) they make the rest of us think "what the f*** is wrong with you?"
  • WillGWillG Posts: 515

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
    This is the big con that has been pulled for decades. In effect the Government is already taking 50%, if not of your earnings, then of the cost of employing you to the company once you take NI and things like the apprenticeship levy into account. And that is before you start looking at the taxes you then pay once you actually try to spend those earnings.

    We need to merge tax and NI as part of making the whole issue of personal taxation far more transparent. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion about what the right level of taxation is for the individual.
    I agree with every you say about simplification and transparency. But the whole "50% of trillionaire money" is deeply misleading.

    The richest 0.1% of society are earning multiples more than at any point in human history. If a 40% was ok for doing the same thing 50 years ago, then a 50% tax now on triple the income is surely acceptable.

    The reality is that the activity of government through protecting property rights, defending against foreign dictators, educating the workforce, building roads and railways and airports etc has increased the incomes of the super rich by 1000%+. Taking back a mere 50% is still an astonishing return on investment. And I say this as someone getting towards mid-six figures.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    I can't find the numbers for France, but per capita growth is going to be in the region of 1-1.5% since 2000.

    For the US it's 1.2% from 2000-09, and 1.5% from 2010-19.
    For Japan, it's 0.3% from 200-09, 1.2% from 2010-19
    For Italy, it's 0.2% in both decades.
    Shocking Italian figures. And you can see it when you go there

    Tuscany no longer feels really “wealthy” like other parts of Western Europe. Which is dismal when you consider its natural advantages

    It’s not great that Britain is becoming more like Italy
    The UK has gone from about parity with Italy at the end of the Nineties to about 15% higher, in terms of GDP per head. But, obviously, Italy's overall numbers are hugely deflated by the South, Centre, and Sicily and Sardinia.

    Northern Italy is on a par with places like Austria and Bavaria.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,323
    edited October 2
    Red card pretty inevitable there. Bloody stupid one too.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,775
    Andrew Neil, Ch4 imminently.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
    On energy demand, the government has for some time been subsidising this via first the feed-in tariff for rooftop solar panels, then insulation and heat pumps via the renewable heat initiative. The current instantiation is the boiler upgrade scheme but this so far has been a bit of a flop. It was introduced by the previous Business Secretary, Kwasi someone-or-other. Not sure what his new job is.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/boiler-upgrade-scheme-statistics
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1672519/truss-heat-pump-boil-upgrade-scheme-mike-foster-energy
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    Ok... if that is your best argument, let me deal with it like this: If 56% tax is good enough for Finland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?

    Any other pointless comparisons we need to be looking at?
    Finland isn't a direct competitor in quite the same way.
    Would you prefer me to pick a different country, because the fundamental flaw is in your premise, and the flaw is this: Ireland is not the UK. They are very different from each other. So direct comparison of tax systems are pointless.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,249
    DougSeal said:

    One thing Starmer has done is wrest back control of his party. At one point I was sure it had to split into Socialist/Social Democrat parties. Who’s going to do that for the Tories? In retrospect Johnson was the only thing holding them together.

    But Johnson wasn't holding them together. He was instrumental in pushing out everyone but the remaining mob.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    I can't find the numbers for France, but per capita growth is going to be in the region of 1-1.5% since 2000.

    For the US it's 1.2% from 2000-09, and 1.5% from 2010-19.
    For Japan, it's 0.3% from 200-09, 1.2% from 2010-19
    For Italy, it's 0.2% in both decades.
    Shocking Italian figures. And you can see it when you go there

    Tuscany no longer feels really “wealthy” like other parts of Western Europe. Which is dismal when you consider its natural advantages

    It’s not great that Britain is becoming more like Italy
    The UK has gone from about parity with Italy at the end of the Nineties to about 15% higher, in terms of GDP per head. But, obviously, Italy's overall numbers are hugely deflated by the South, Centre, and Sicily and Sardinia.

    Northern Italy is on a par with places like Austria and Bavaria.
    Yes. Northern Italy is wealthier per head than most of the UK apart from London and the home counties. Southern Italy however is poorer than northern England.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    Ok... if that is your best argument, let me deal with it like this: If 56% tax is good enough for Finland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?

    Any other pointless comparisons we need to be looking at?
    Finland isn't a direct competitor in quite the same way.
    Would you prefer me to pick a different country, because the fundamental flaw is in your premise, and the flaw is this: Ireland is not the UK. They are very different from each other. So direct comparison of tax systems are pointless.
    My point was simply that 40% isn't an outrageously regressive figure by any sensible comparison.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    I said last week Truss would sacrifice Kwasi to save her job.

    Now I am not so sure. I think she is daring Tory MPs to VONC her. Then her narrative will not be "I folded under pressure" but "I was betrayed"

    Truly, continuity BoZo...
    Truss has now boxed herself into ideological libertarian government. If that goes, so does she
    I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

    Every one of us has an ideology - for what it's worth, mine is quite libertarian. By and large, I believe prosperity and freedom comes from a smaller state, with less intervention, and greater personal choice.

    But though I'm guided by my beliefs, I understand they have to be tempered by how those ideas work in reality. You have to be pragmatic - adapting your ideology to the problems facing the country today. My instincts are naturally free market, for example -- but free markets don't function properly in a wartime economy. So I look at other solutions. That's why I'm not averse to say a windfall tax, or even outright nationalisation of the energy industry.

    Truss and Co have walked into government as if they're fantasy football fanatics who have somehow miraculously been handed the top job at a premier league club. They've been salivating about their fantasy team for years, now they're going to play it out - consequences be damned.

    They are ideological zealots - and to a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

    They have only their ideology at their disposal - and they intend to beat us about the head with it, because it is the only tool they know.

    There is no compromise, no pragmatism, no common sense. That is why they are a terrible government, and have to go.

    The sort of policy decisions they're coming up with belong in an ideological think tank, not a pragmatic government that needs to accept compromise, and requires a democratic mandate.

    Indeed, Truss is the most ideological libertarian PM we have ever had. Even Thatcher was more of a pragmatist in power than Truss is
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    WillG said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
    This is the big con that has been pulled for decades. In effect the Government is already taking 50%, if not of your earnings, then of the cost of employing you to the company once you take NI and things like the apprenticeship levy into account. And that is before you start looking at the taxes you then pay once you actually try to spend those earnings.

    We need to merge tax and NI as part of making the whole issue of personal taxation far more transparent. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion about what the right level of taxation is for the individual.
    I agree with every you say about simplification and transparency. But the whole "50% of trillionaire money" is deeply misleading.

    The richest 0.1% of society are earning multiples more than at any point in human history. If a 40% was ok for doing the same thing 50 years ago, then a 50% tax now on triple the income is surely acceptable.

    The reality is that the activity of government through protecting property rights, defending against foreign dictators, educating the workforce, building roads and railways and airports etc has increased the incomes of the super rich by 1000%+. Taking back a mere 50% is still an astonishing return on investment. And I say this as someone getting towards mid-six figures.
    Living in a country where you are not going to get kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government, or mugged by the poor, and where you have access to wonderful schools, countryside, universities, cultural activities, and shopping, is something that the super-rich should be expected to pay a lot of their income towards. Income tax should be seen as a substitute for having to lead soldiers into battle, or build warships, or fund churches or artistic performances, which is what the super-rich had to do in past eras.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    Sinn Féin 37% (+1)
    Fine Gael 21% (nc)
    Fianna Fáil 17% (+1)
    Greens 4% (+2)
    People Before Profit/Solidarity 4% (-1)
    Labour 3% (nc)
    Aontú 3% (nc)
    Social Democrats 3% (-1)
    others/independents 8% (-3)

    (Ireland Thinks/Sunday Independent; 1,254; 1 October)

    Still 38% FF and FG and 37% SF.

    In a few years time FF and FG may as well merge, the old divisions of the Irish civil war are over and they are now, combined effectively the main party of the centre right in Ireland while SF is effectively the main party of the Irish left
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    HYUFD said:

    Sinn Féin 37% (+1)
    Fine Gael 21% (nc)
    Fianna Fáil 17% (+1)
    Greens 4% (+2)
    People Before Profit/Solidarity 4% (-1)
    Labour 3% (nc)
    Aontú 3% (nc)
    Social Democrats 3% (-1)
    others/independents 8% (-3)

    (Ireland Thinks/Sunday Independent; 1,254; 1 October)

    Still 38% FF and FG and 37% SF.

    In a few years time FF and FG may as well merge, the old divisions of the Irish civil war are over and they are now, combined effectively the main party of the centre right in Ireland while SF is effectively the main party of the Irish left
    If Sinn Fein do come to power in the Dail, I doubt if we'll need to cut taxes to persuade well-heeled Irish people to move to this country.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575
    edited October 2
    WillG said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
    This is the big con that has been pulled for decades. In effect the Government is already taking 50%, if not of your earnings, then of the cost of employing you to the company once you take NI and things like the apprenticeship levy into account. And that is before you start looking at the taxes you then pay once you actually try to spend those earnings.

    We need to merge tax and NI as part of making the whole issue of personal taxation far more transparent. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion about what the right level of taxation is for the individual.
    I agree with every you say about simplification and transparency. But the whole "50% of trillionaire money" is deeply misleading.

    The richest 0.1% of society are earning multiples more than at any point in human history. If a 40% was ok for doing the same thing 50 years ago, then a 50% tax now on triple the income is surely acceptable.

    The reality is that the activity of government through protecting property rights, defending against foreign dictators, educating the workforce, building roads and railways and airports etc has increased the incomes of the super rich by 1000%+. Taking back a mere 50% is still an astonishing return on investment. And I say this as someone getting towards mid-six figures.
    If you read what I wrote I made no comment on whether or not a 50% tax rate is suitable or not. I was only arguing that in fact, contrary to what Robert and Leon were saying, it is already a reality and then some. When most of the people seem to have no idea how much of our income the Government is already taking because it is so opaque, it seems pointless to argue about a 50% rate which in effect is already in existence even at earnings rates less than twice the national average.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 515
    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
    This is the big con that has been pulled for decades. In effect the Government is already taking 50%, if not of your earnings, then of the cost of employing you to the company once you take NI and things like the apprenticeship levy into account. And that is before you start looking at the taxes you then pay once you actually try to spend those earnings.

    We need to merge tax and NI as part of making the whole issue of personal taxation far more transparent. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion about what the right level of taxation is for the individual.
    I agree with every you say about simplification and transparency. But the whole "50% of trillionaire money" is deeply misleading.

    The richest 0.1% of society are earning multiples more than at any point in human history. If a 40% was ok for doing the same thing 50 years ago, then a 50% tax now on triple the income is surely acceptable.

    The reality is that the activity of government through protecting property rights, defending against foreign dictators, educating the workforce, building roads and railways and airports etc has increased the incomes of the super rich by 1000%+. Taking back a mere 50% is still an astonishing return on investment. And I say this as someone getting towards mid-six figures.
    Living in a country where you are not going to get kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government, or mugged by the poor, and where you have access to wonderful schools, countryside, universities, cultural activities, and shopping, is something that the super-rich should be expected to pay a lot of their income towards. Income tax should be seen as a substitute for having to lead soldiers into battle, or build warships, or fund churches or artistic performances, which is what the super-rich had to do in past eras.
    This is why I always find it astonishing that rich right wing Americans want to move ever closer to Russian-style oligarchy. If you just keep on slashing consumer and labour protections, defunding the welfare state and preventing people from voting, sure you may get a few more million that you'll be unlikely to ever spend. But you end up with a society where your survival depends on the good will of one man at the top, and you might be bankrupted or thrown out a window on a whim. It's madness.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,109
    We should be focusing on GDP per capita not total GDP. Even among developed nations population changes are not aligned. We're clearly well behind many western countries and it is worth asking why.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
    The household price cap solution cannot be used on business, for there is no cap for business - it actually has to be two different solutions, households and business.
    Agreed but Robert's proposals seem to do nothing to address the business issue.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    Disagree on (2). Income tax should never be 50% even for trillionaires. The government should never take half of your money. A terrible psychological signal
    This is the big con that has been pulled for decades. In effect the Government is already taking 50%, if not of your earnings, then of the cost of employing you to the company once you take NI and things like the apprenticeship levy into account. And that is before you start looking at the taxes you then pay once you actually try to spend those earnings.

    We need to merge tax and NI as part of making the whole issue of personal taxation far more transparent. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion about what the right level of taxation is for the individual.
    I agree with every you say about simplification and transparency. But the whole "50% of trillionaire money" is deeply misleading.

    The richest 0.1% of society are earning multiples more than at any point in human history. If a 40% was ok for doing the same thing 50 years ago, then a 50% tax now on triple the income is surely acceptable.

    The reality is that the activity of government through protecting property rights, defending against foreign dictators, educating the workforce, building roads and railways and airports etc has increased the incomes of the super rich by 1000%+. Taking back a mere 50% is still an astonishing return on investment. And I say this as someone getting towards mid-six figures.
    Living in a country where you are not going to get kidnapped by rivals, or murdered by the government, or mugged by the poor, and where you have access to wonderful schools, countryside, universities, cultural activities, and shopping, is something that the super-rich should be expected to pay a lot of their income towards. Income tax should be seen as a substitute for having to lead soldiers into battle, or build warships, or fund churches or artistic performances, which is what the super-rich had to do in past eras.
    This is why I always find it astonishing that rich right wing Americans want to move ever closer to Russian-style oligarchy. If you just keep on slashing consumer and labour protections, defunding the welfare state and preventing people from voting, sure you may get a few more million that you'll be unlikely to ever spend. But you end up with a society where your survival depends on the good will of one man at the top, and you might be bankrupted or thrown out a window on a whim. It's madness.
    There is no society in which one's privileges do not have a price attached to them.

    In liberal democracies, that price is far lower than in any other time or place.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    Keynes thought that by now, we'd be working about twenty hours a week. It turns out that people want money more than leisure.
    No. By and large, people work whatever hours they need to in order to get by.

    My experience, in an environment where flexible hours are accommodated, is that many older workers go part time the nanosecond they can afford to do so. If my financial circumstances don't get substantially worse then I shall likely do that myself.

    If you're struggling to get by or flat broke then your life is bound to end up revolving around money. We're going to see more and more of that in the coming years because the country is getting poorer. It's not that people necessarily work themselves into the ground because they *want* money to spend on iPhones or Rolexes, it's because they *need* the money as they can't survive without it.

    Most people *want* to spend as little time working as possible.
    Peoples' expectations of what is needed to get by head inexorably upwards.

    That's why the standard of living enjoyed by a professional person in the 1920's is not remotely sufficient for the vast majority of people today, which is what would have surprised Keynes.
    Talking to a taxi driver from turkey last night...he said the uk has got substantially poorer relative to turkey in the last 20 years
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,654
    What’s this about removing business regulation for those under 500 Employees?

    Isn’t that going to be an almighty catalyst for chaos
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,873
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    I said last week Truss would sacrifice Kwasi to save her job.

    Now I am not so sure. I think she is daring Tory MPs to VONC her. Then her narrative will not be "I folded under pressure" but "I was betrayed"

    Truly, continuity BoZo...
    Truss has now boxed herself into ideological libertarian government. If that goes, so does she
    I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

    Every one of us has an ideology - for what it's worth, mine is quite libertarian. By and large, I believe prosperity and freedom comes from a smaller state, with less intervention, and greater personal choice.

    But though I'm guided by my beliefs, I understand they have to be tempered by how those ideas work in reality. You have to be pragmatic - adapting your ideology to the problems facing the country today. My instincts are naturally free market, for example -- but free markets don't function properly in a wartime economy. So I look at other solutions. That's why I'm not averse to say a windfall tax, or even outright nationalisation of the energy industry.

    Truss and Co have walked into government as if they're fantasy football fanatics who have somehow miraculously been handed the top job at a premier league club. They've been salivating about their fantasy team for years, now they're going to play it out - consequences be damned.

    They are ideological zealots - and to a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

    They have only their ideology at their disposal - and they intend to beat us about the head with it, because it is the only tool they know.

    There is no compromise, no pragmatism, no common sense. That is why they are a terrible government, and have to go.

    The sort of policy decisions they're coming up with belong in an ideological think tank, not a pragmatic government that needs to accept compromise, and requires a democratic mandate.

    Excellent post, but I would say that because my views are identical.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    edited October 2
    pigeon said:

    Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:

    People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.

    So, the general message is that people who are on lower incomes should either freeze in Winter or find better paid work. Great. Firstly the UK 'jobs miracle' that Boris Johnson always used to go on about largely consists of minimum wage crap jobs, so how are all these people suddenly meant to find the kind of upper middle class employment that will still pay them just about enough to heat and eat properly? Secondly, a lot of those who are in full-time employment and yet already rationing fuel use and buying budget brands (or even visiting food banks) are the very same key workers that we were all entreated to praise, and engage in performative pot banging in honour of, only a couple of years ago. If all the chronically underpaid care home workers, nurses and so on who struggle with their bills tried to piss off to work in city financial institutions (or, for that matter, in Aldi) then we, as a nation, would be completely sunk.

    These are our rulers. Tone deaf, cruel and absolutely thick as mince.

    While I think Jake Berry is a tone deaf idiot, I think the misery porn can be overblown. Anyone in middle class employment lives very well.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    PeterM said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    Keynes thought that by now, we'd be working about twenty hours a week. It turns out that people want money more than leisure.
    No. By and large, people work whatever hours they need to in order to get by.

    My experience, in an environment where flexible hours are accommodated, is that many older workers go part time the nanosecond they can afford to do so. If my financial circumstances don't get substantially worse then I shall likely do that myself.

    If you're struggling to get by or flat broke then your life is bound to end up revolving around money. We're going to see more and more of that in the coming years because the country is getting poorer. It's not that people necessarily work themselves into the ground because they *want* money to spend on iPhones or Rolexes, it's because they *need* the money as they can't survive without it.

    Most people *want* to spend as little time working as possible.
    Peoples' expectations of what is needed to get by head inexorably upwards.

    That's why the standard of living enjoyed by a professional person in the 1920's is not remotely sufficient for the vast majority of people today, which is what would have surprised Keynes.
    Talking to a taxi driver from turkey last night...he said the uk has got substantially poorer relative to turkey in the last 20 years
    I would imagine that the Turkish economy has grown a lot faster than ours has over that period, although we are, as a society, still a good deal richer.
  • Two years ago we were asking, will Labour ever govern this country again. When will it split. Is it all over?

    Now we're asking the same of the Tories. My long-held view is that the Tories were headed for extinction prior to Johnson, he just temporarily stopped it with GE19.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,454
    Eabhal said:

    Ran my first marathon today. Strongly recommend, despite the pain.

    Favourite moment was when a group of Aussies got overtaken by some Kiwis. Enough c-words to get banned from PB.

    How did they know (the nationality)?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
    The household price cap solution cannot be used on business, for there is no cap for business - it actually has to be two different solutions, households and business.
    So I read 1) as reference to just the household scheme. The point RCS is making, if we weren’t wasting many billions on the household cap, those many wasted billions, handed out to people who don’t need a hand out at all, can instead be in play to support business. There really is no arguing with that point is there - value for money brings money in play for something else, wasted money due to lazy lack of effort and imagination from government, deprives support from other needy causes.
  • Congratulations @Eabhal! Crossing that finishing line is like nothing else
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,454

    Eabhal said:

    Ran my first marathon today. Strongly recommend, despite the pain.

    Favourite moment was when a group of Aussies got overtaken by some Kiwis. Enough c-words to get banned from PB.

    How did they know (the nationality)?
    And - well done. I used to think there were two types of people in the world. Those who had run a marathon and those who hadn’t. Then I did one and decided there were three. Those who never run marathons. Those who run one and think f*uck it, never again. And those who do more than one, often a lot more.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697

    Eabhal said:

    Ran my first marathon today. Strongly recommend, despite the pain.

    Favourite moment was when a group of Aussies got overtaken by some Kiwis. Enough c-words to get banned from PB.

    How did they know (the nationality)?
    The Kiwis had black shirts on with some running club in NZ (can't remember the city)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,454

    Two years ago we were asking, will Labour ever govern this country again. When will it split. Is it all over?

    Now we're asking the same of the Tories. My long-held view is that the Tories were headed for extinction prior to Johnson, he just temporarily stopped it with GE19.

    That’s as overblown as the death of labour was. The Tories will reinvent themselves again. If nothing else, the Tories like being in power, and to do that you have to get voted in. That’s been labours Achilles heel too often - content to be morally right, but lose out on power. There are still many in labour that hate Blair. Blair - the most successful labour politician ever.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575

    Two years ago we were asking, will Labour ever govern this country again. When will it split. Is it all over?

    Now we're asking the same of the Tories. My long-held view is that the Tories were headed for extinction prior to Johnson, he just temporarily stopped it with GE19.

    Why should it be any more likely for the Tories than Labour? Sadly both parties rebound from their catastrophic choices (I would love to see both cease to exist) and I am sure that the Tories will eventually bounce back just as Labour have. Though it certainly won't be as quickly unless PM Starmer falls under a bus and is replaced by Wes Streeting.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    rcs1000 said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    We could do that with literally every tax: if no sales tax is good enough for Nevada, why do we even have VAT? If vehicle duty of a flat $150/year works for Wyoming, why can't it work in the UK?

    We would, unfortunately, not raise enough tax to cover more than a fraction of spending.
    Sophistry sadly NOT being a reliable substitute for reality.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,836
    May has lost her seats, but Truss will lose her hundreds of seats ...
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145
    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:

    People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.

    So, the general message is that people who are on lower incomes should either freeze in Winter or find better paid work. Great. Firstly the UK 'jobs miracle' that Boris Johnson always used to go on about largely consists of minimum wage crap jobs, so how are all these people suddenly meant to find the kind of upper middle class employment that will still pay them just about enough to heat and eat properly? Secondly, a lot of those who are in full-time employment and yet already rationing fuel use and buying budget brands (or even visiting food banks) are the very same key workers that we were all entreated to praise, and engage in performative pot banging in honour of, only a couple of years ago. If all the chronically underpaid care home workers, nurses and so on who struggle with their bills tried to piss off to work in city financial institutions (or, for that matter, in Aldi) then we, as a nation, would be completely sunk.

    These are our rulers. Tone deaf, cruel and absolutely thick as mince.

    While I think Jake Berry is a tone deaf idiot, I think the misery porn can be overblown. Anyone in middle class employment lives very well.
    This evidently depends very much on your personal circumstances, and on exactly how high your earnings are. With the ridiculous state of rents, mortgages, childcare costs and petrol prices, a lot of really quite well paid couples would nonetheless have been in the just about managing category before the latest inflationary shock. We now have significant food price inflation, most pay settlements contracting in real terms, those nasty domestic energy bills, and very substantial increases in accommodation costs coming round the corner to knock an awful lot of people clear over the edge of the financial precipice. It's not going to be pretty.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,200
    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:

    People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.

    So, the general message is that people who are on lower incomes should either freeze in Winter or find better paid work. Great. Firstly the UK 'jobs miracle' that Boris Johnson always used to go on about largely consists of minimum wage crap jobs, so how are all these people suddenly meant to find the kind of upper middle class employment that will still pay them just about enough to heat and eat properly? Secondly, a lot of those who are in full-time employment and yet already rationing fuel use and buying budget brands (or even visiting food banks) are the very same key workers that we were all entreated to praise, and engage in performative pot banging in honour of, only a couple of years ago. If all the chronically underpaid care home workers, nurses and so on who struggle with their bills tried to piss off to work in city financial institutions (or, for that matter, in Aldi) then we, as a nation, would be completely sunk.

    These are our rulers. Tone deaf, cruel and absolutely thick as mince.

    While I think Jake Berry is a tone deaf idiot, I think the misery porn can be overblown. Anyone in middle class employment lives very well.
    In my experience it all depends on your housing situation.
    If you have a double income of £5k / month and a mortgage payment of £500 per month, then you are doing ok.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,654
    I’m dreading the policies that will come from this conference. They’ll be callous, tone deaf and will make everything worse

    Absolutely no chance that this is recoverable
  • WillG said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    That's not the reason we are still working. The reason is that automation usually complements activity rather than replaces it. And as it gets better, it makes the human work much more productive, meaning the rewards for work are much greater. In general, you get much more luxury in the 2020s from working full time than you did in the 1950s. You get fantastic entertainment on demand, holidays abroad, cleaner houses with labour-saving devices, better tasting food. The only reason this isn't more obvious is because the cost of housing is so much more because successive governments have mismanaged population growth and housing can't keep up.
    But we only get one go at living. Why isn’t working fewer hours a target?

    WillG said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    UK is reportedly the only G7 economy to not quite have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of GDP.

    I don't think that can be true, surely - I seem to remember announcements some time ago now that in GDP terms we'd gone back past where we were before covid?
    They’ve gone back and adjusted earlier figures. It is true
    The economy is ahead of where it was in February 2020, but a shade below where it was for the quarter ending June 2022, compared to the quarter ending December 2019. That said, GDP growth is always revised upwards over the long term.

    For example, initial estimates were that the economy contracted by 7.2% in 2009. That's now revised up to a contraction of 4.2%. And, remember tim's glee at the "recession" of 2012, well, it never happened. In fact, the economy grew by 1.5% that year, not stellar, but a long way from a recession.

    Looking at the longer term, GDP per head grew by 1% per annum, from 2000-09, and 1.2% per annum from 2010-19, which is not terrible by rich world standards over that period, but very poor compared to the whole period 1970-99, where the average was 2.5% per annum.

    Contrary to what was believed at the time, the Seventies and Eighties were a time of fast economic growth. It slowed a bit in the Nineties, but was still a decent 2.1% per head, per annum.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB
    Interesting

    I imagine the charts for most western nations would be similar. Growth has slowed for all, it is what happens to developed nations

    That said, I anticipate a major spurt in growth once AI kicks in. It will be like the advent of electricity or the combustion engine, perhaps even bigger: like the industrial revolution

    It will be painful for many but on the whole it should transform human lives in a good way

    That is: if we don’t blow ourselves up interim
    If you look back on visions of the future, no one has to do much in the way of work. It’s leisure all the way. Robots run our lives, grow our food, power our tech etc. And yet here in 2022 we still work 37.5 hours a week (my official contract). Transitioning to a lower work future that is fair is tricky. How does the entire planet live lives of luxury?
    In reality, people like to have purpose in their lives, well most of us do. I think this is why some conservatives have such low opinions of those on benefits. They cannot conceive of not working. Life is, of course, much more complex than that.
    That's not the reason we are still working. The reason is that automation usually complements activity rather than replaces it. And as it gets better, it makes the human work much more productive, meaning the rewards for work are much greater. In general, you get much more luxury in the 2020s from working full time than you did in the 1950s. You get fantastic entertainment on demand, holidays abroad, cleaner houses with labour-saving devices, better tasting food. The only reason this isn't more obvious is because the cost of housing is so much more because successive governments have mismanaged population growth and housing can't keep up.
    But we only get one go at living. Why isn’t working fewer hours a target?
    Because of the inheritance of the New Right, of the 1970's. All Work is good, and "morally improving", in a kind of pure and undifferentiated revival of the Victorians' ' approach to work.

    Except that it isn't. A number of modern jobs have not only marginal or no net economic effect, but paired with the wrong people lead to physical and mental illness.

    We need to re-examine what we consider useful work, not only to encompass the caring and communally beneficial, but revisit some ideas of the 1960's of the leisure and creative society after automation.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,551

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW and WOW: Steve Baker, former head of ERG apologises to Ireland and the EU for “not always behaving” in a way that they would “trust us” in Brexit negotiations . “I am really sorry about that because relations with Ireland are not where they should be”
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1576609125919649794

    A good thing to do. Perhaps the EU and Ireland might reciprocate?
    Very welcome comments from Baker . I do hope relations can improve between the EU and UK.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
    The household price cap solution cannot be used on business, for there is no cap for business - it actually has to be two different solutions, households and business.
    So I read 1) as reference to just the household scheme. The point RCS is making, if we weren’t wasting many billions on the household cap, those many wasted billions, handed out to people who don’t need a hand out at all, can instead be in play to support business. There really is no arguing with that point is there - value for money brings money in play for something else, wasted money due to lazy lack of effort and imagination from government, deprives support from other needy causes.
    If you are advocating the widespread introduction of means testing for all Government handouts then I would be strongly in agreement with you in principle. Indeed my wife and I took that principle to the point of being threatened with court about 15 years ago because we took a stand against the Government trying to give us tax credits when we didn't think we needed or deserved them.

    But there are lots of people who oppose means testing on principle and many more who also have good arguments about it costing more than it saves.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 515
    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:

    People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.

    So, the general message is that people who are on lower incomes should either freeze in Winter or find better paid work. Great. Firstly the UK 'jobs miracle' that Boris Johnson always used to go on about largely consists of minimum wage crap jobs, so how are all these people suddenly meant to find the kind of upper middle class employment that will still pay them just about enough to heat and eat properly? Secondly, a lot of those who are in full-time employment and yet already rationing fuel use and buying budget brands (or even visiting food banks) are the very same key workers that we were all entreated to praise, and engage in performative pot banging in honour of, only a couple of years ago. If all the chronically underpaid care home workers, nurses and so on who struggle with their bills tried to piss off to work in city financial institutions (or, for that matter, in Aldi) then we, as a nation, would be completely sunk.

    These are our rulers. Tone deaf, cruel and absolutely thick as mince.

    While I think Jake Berry is a tone deaf idiot, I think the misery porn can be overblown. Anyone in middle class employment lives very well.
    This evidently depends very much on your personal circumstances, and on exactly how high your earnings are. With the ridiculous state of rents, mortgages, childcare costs and petrol prices, a lot of really quite well paid couples would nonetheless have been in the just about managing category before the latest inflationary shock. We now have significant food price inflation, most pay settlements contracting in real terms, those nasty domestic energy bills, and very substantial increases in accommodation costs coming round the corner to knock an awful lot of people clear over the edge of the financial precipice. It's not going to be pretty.
    The government would really do a lot better throwing money at childcare than at energy subsidies. The collapse in fertility is going to be devastating long term.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,770

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
    Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.

    But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
    Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
    If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:

    (1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.

    (2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.

    (3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)

    (4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.

    (5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.

    YMMV
    With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
    The household price cap solution cannot be used on business, for there is no cap for business - it actually has to be two different solutions, households and business.
    So I read 1) as reference to just the household scheme. The point RCS is making, if we weren’t wasting many billions on the household cap, those many wasted billions, handed out to people who don’t need a hand out at all, can instead be in play to support business. There really is no arguing with that point is there - value for money brings money in play for something else, wasted money due to lazy lack of effort and imagination from government, deprives support from other needy causes.
    If you are advocating the widespread introduction of means testing for all Government handouts then I would be strongly in agreement with you in principle. Indeed my wife and I took that principle to the point of being threatened with court about 15 years ago because we took a stand against the Government trying to give us tax credits when we didn't think we needed or deserved them.

    But there are lots of people who oppose means testing on principle and many more who also have good arguments about it costing more than it saves.
    Yep - means testing costs serious money to both administrator and pay.

    Worse the stigma attached and knowledge required to claim money means a lot of those most in need do not claim and receive it...

    It's a lot more sensible to work out how to give the money to everyone who hits some easy to identify criteria and then deduct it from those who shouldn't have got it...
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.

    Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.

    If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
    If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
    Ok... if that is your best argument, let me deal with it like this: If 56% tax is good enough for Finland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?

    Any other pointless comparisons we need to be looking at?
    Finland isn't a direct competitor in quite the same way.
    Would you prefer me to pick a different country, because the fundamental flaw is in your premise, and the flaw is this: Ireland is not the UK. They are very different from each other. So direct comparison of tax systems are pointless.
    My point was simply that 40% isn't an outrageously regressive figure by any sensible comparison.
    I never said that it was. What I said is that she needs to undo the mini-budget. I was not talking about the rates.

    It is up there ↑↑↑↑↑↑ under the show previous quotes link
  • eekeek Posts: 21,770
    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:

    People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.

    So, the general message is that people who are on lower incomes should either freeze in Winter or find better paid work. Great. Firstly the UK 'jobs miracle' that Boris Johnson always used to go on about largely consists of minimum wage crap jobs, so how are all these people suddenly meant to find the kind of upper middle class employment that will still pay them just about enough to heat and eat properly? Secondly, a lot of those who are in full-time employment and yet already rationing fuel use and buying budget brands (or even visiting food banks) are the very same key workers that we were all entreated to praise, and engage in performative pot banging in honour of, only a couple of years ago. If all the chronically underpaid care home workers, nurses and so on who struggle with their bills tried to piss off to work in city financial institutions (or, for that matter, in Aldi) then we, as a nation, would be completely sunk.

    These are our rulers. Tone deaf, cruel and absolutely thick as mince.

    While I think Jake Berry is a tone deaf idiot, I think the misery porn can be overblown. Anyone in middle class employment lives very well.
    25% of hospitals run food banks for their staff and I suspect the rest will be doing to sooner rather than later.....
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697

    Congratulations @Eabhal! Crossing that finishing line is like nothing else

    Nor is the last 10k...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,032
    nico679 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW and WOW: Steve Baker, former head of ERG apologises to Ireland and the EU for “not always behaving” in a way that they would “trust us” in Brexit negotiations . “I am really sorry about that because relations with Ireland are not where they should be”
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1576609125919649794

    A good thing to do. Perhaps the EU and Ireland might reciprocate?
    Very welcome comments from Baker . I do hope relations can improve between the EU and UK.
    I have been maintaining that for a long time and Truss going to Macron's inaugural meeting of the new European political group in Prague later this week is the one bit of good news in a bleak period
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938

    Two years ago we were asking, will Labour ever govern this country again. When will it split. Is it all over?

    Now we're asking the same of the Tories. My long-held view is that the Tories were headed for extinction prior to Johnson, he just temporarily stopped it with GE19.

    Since there is only room for one right wing party and one left wing party in our electoral system, the Tories are not headed for extinction, and even if they were, would be replaced by another right wing party.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,962
    Early evening all :)

    Almost all the votes counted after Latvia's General Election and the new Saiema as follows:

    New Unity: 26 seats (+18)
    Union of Greens and Farmers 16 (+5)
    United List: 15 (+15)
    National Alliance: 13 (nc)
    For Stability! 11 (+11)
    Progressives: 10 (+10)
    Latvia First 9 (+9)

    So that's Harmony, the Conservatives, Development For! and Who Owns The State? who at the 2018 election won 70 of the 100 seats all wiped out.

    It's a massive upheaval - only two of the four Government parties have survived and they now have 39 seats between them. The Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS) and United List (AS) have 31 - could they work together since the one split from the other?

    We have 30 seats belonging to three new entrants to the Saeima - For Stability! split from Harmony in early 2021 and has a curios programme which is populist in nature and I'm not sure would appeal as prospective coalition partners.

    The Progressives are what you would expect - pro-EU and broadly social democratic. To an extent, they've replaced Harmony - they did flirt with the centre to right wing parties before losing heavily in 2018 and I suspect they'll be more wary this time.

    Latvia First was formed in August 2021 - two of its first deputies split from Harmony and it was formed in protest at mandatory vaccinations for health workers.

    The ZZS leader, Alvars Lembergs, seems a colourful character and as he's currently serving a 5-year prison term not likely to become Prime Minister (you'd think).
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,448
    pigeon said:

    Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:

    People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.

    So, the general message is that people who are on lower incomes should either freeze in Winter or find better paid work. Great. Firstly the UK 'jobs miracle' that Boris Johnson always used to go on about largely consists of minimum wage crap jobs, so how are all these people suddenly meant to find the kind of upper middle class employment that will still pay them just about enough to heat and eat properly? Secondly, a lot of those who are in full-time employment and yet already rationing fuel use and buying budget brands (or even visiting food banks) are the very same key workers that we were all entreated to praise, and engage in performative pot banging in honour of, only a couple of years ago. If all the chronically underpaid care home workers, nurses and so on who struggle with their bills tried to piss off to work in city financial institutions (or, for that matter, in Aldi) then we, as a nation, would be completely sunk.

    These are our rulers. Tone deaf, cruel and absolutely thick as mince.

    RaspBerry for Jake Berry. They are just trying to repel half their 2019 voters.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,654
    Good tip. Wasn’t too bad either with my McLaren one - though that was probably more luck…!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    edited October 2
    Chris said:

    May has lost her seats, but Truss will lose her hundreds of seats ...

    We are now in the astonishing position where the Tories could actually even lose more seats next May under Truss in the local elections than the 1,330 Tory councillors and candidates in Tory held wards who lost their seats in May 2019. Then the Tories got 28% NEV under May, last night however Opinium had the Tories on just 27%
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:

    People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.

    So, the general message is that people who are on lower incomes should either freeze in Winter or find better paid work. Great. Firstly the UK 'jobs miracle' that Boris Johnson always used to go on about largely consists of minimum wage crap jobs, so how are all these people suddenly meant to find the kind of upper middle class employment that will still pay them just about enough to heat and eat properly? Secondly, a lot of those who are in full-time employment and yet already rationing fuel use and buying budget brands (or even visiting food banks) are the very same key workers that we were all entreated to praise, and engage in performative pot banging in honour of, only a couple of years ago. If all the chronically underpaid care home workers, nurses and so on who struggle with their bills tried to piss off to work in city financial institutions (or, for that matter, in Aldi) then we, as a nation, would be completely sunk.

    These are our rulers. Tone deaf, cruel and absolutely thick as mince.

    While I think Jake Berry is a tone deaf idiot, I think the misery porn can be overblown. Anyone in middle class employment lives very well.
    This evidently depends very much on your personal circumstances, and on exactly how high your earnings are. With the ridiculous state of rents, mortgages, childcare costs and petrol prices, a lot of really quite well paid couples would nonetheless have been in the just about managing category before the latest inflationary shock. We now have significant food price inflation, most pay settlements contracting in real terms, those nasty domestic energy bills, and very substantial increases in accommodation costs coming round the corner to knock an awful lot of people clear over the edge of the financial precipice. It's not going to be pretty.
    The FT majored heavily a fortnight ago, on the "deterioration" of median incomes over the past 22 years, when the actual data showed median household incomes rising from $30,000 to $44,000 in real terms over that period.
This discussion has been closed.