Is the regent about to become the monarch? – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.rcs1000 said:
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.malcolmg said:
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certainSean_F said:
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?Gardenwalker said:At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/0 -
But this is being driven by international gilt rates as the dragon of inflation has once again got loose. The ECB has said that it will be increasing rates by 0.75% at its next meeting and the Fed is clearly not finished yet. Even the BoE will get the message after the last couple of weeks. The days of extremely cheap mortgages have come to an end. This is probably a good thing but obviously uncomfortable for those who assumed it would go on forever.Scott_xP said:As well as inflation rising, mortgage rates are still climbing with 2 yr/ 5 yr fixes above 6%, according to the latest data from MoneyFacts.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-economy-latest-news-inflation-mortgage-rates-12615118 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1582616191004467200/photo/14 -
Shhhh... I'm trying to annoy @malcolmgOnlyLivingBoy said:
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.rcs1000 said:
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.malcolmg said:
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certainSean_F said:
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?Gardenwalker said:At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/0 -
Cleverly talking stupidly.Scott_xP said:James Cleverly tells @TimesRadio that “the fundamentals” of the original mini-budget were correct and that questions based on “hindsight” were unfair.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/15826194264901550135 -
He does seem to be making more difficult but correct decisions as compared to Sunak's 'load all the expense on the workers' approach.Chris said:I am starting to think that Jeremy Hunt really has the best long-term interests of the country at heart, rather than personal popularity.
If so, the surprising thing would be that he's got so far in the party, not that he'd never be elected leader by the members.
Kwarteng of course not even worth including in the comparison.1 -
You are right. This is a global problem, not a UK one.DavidL said:
But this is being driven by international gilt rates as the dragon of inflation has once again got loose. The ECB has said that it will be increasing rates by 0.75% at its next meeting and the Fed is clearly not finished yet. Even the BoE will get the message after the last couple of weeks. The days of extremely cheap mortgages have come to an end. This is probably a good thing but obviously uncomfortable for those who assumed it would go on forever.Scott_xP said:As well as inflation rising, mortgage rates are still climbing with 2 yr/ 5 yr fixes above 6%, according to the latest data from MoneyFacts.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-economy-latest-news-inflation-mortgage-rates-12615118 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1582616191004467200/photo/1
The trouble is, when you say "uncomfortable for those who thought this would go on forever" you essentially mean "anyone who has bought a house in the last decade". And that is so many people, its effects on the wider economy will be ruinous. At the very least, it probably means most people aged 30-50 will have approximately zero discretionary income for the foreseeable.0 -
We do that by having the capacity to recover the gratuitous alienation to Edmund's voracious offspring. It is perfectly common to do this in the event of insolvency or even transfers made to defeat divorce claims. To a limited extent it exists already.rcs1000 said:@DavidL & @BartholomewRoberts
I am fully in agreement with you both that people should use their savings to look after themselves, rather than for inheritance.
But we do want to avoid a situation where Edmund (77 years old, and in increasingly poor health) is pressured by his children to hand over his assets now, so as to avoid the State stripping them from him to pay for care.0 -
Borderline fascist disregard for people's feelings there, Bart. For people in homes it is not always cut and dried that they will never return home and even if it is a huge number cling to the illusion that it is not the case that they are only leaving the care home in a coffin.BartholomewRoberts said:
No, because care homes and medical care aren't the same thing. Even if there's a connection in dementia.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Roberts, do you take that view for medical care as well?
If someone has eg cancer or cystic fibrosis or whatever and is getting medical treatment but living at home they still need to pay for their own home, their own utility bills, their own food, transportation etc, etc
If someone is in a residential care home, then that is all covered by the care home bills. You don't need your own home if you're never returning to it, your utility bills, food etc are all in the care home fees.
Stopping the home from being sold does nothing whatsoever for the person who used to live in that home. If its to protect an inheritance, well I'm sorry, but the taxpayer should not be on the hook to fund anyone's inheritances.
People who are in a care home for eg two weeks for respite/recovery while discharged from an NHS hospital to free a bed up before returning to their own home, I'd absolutely say should be covered by the NHS.0 -
The argument - which is plausible but not decisive IMV - is that in achieving a significant but tactical victory over Truss (forcing her to retreat before the power of the markets), Labour has highlighted the debt challenges the country faces and will make it harder for them to increase public spending as they might otherwise have intendedDecrepiterJohnL said:
I'd agree that Hunt's apparent embrace of Osbornian austerity is a bad thing, and that we should still aim at growth. I'm damned if I can see what "the left" has to do with this.Andy_JS said:"The Left has just ushered in an age of austerity
Labour will come to regret siding with the markets and the technocrats
Thomas Fazi"
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-left-has-just-ushered-in-an-age-of-austerity/
1 -
...
4 -
Why be fair?rcs1000 said:
That was when storage contracts came to an end. The decision not to subsidize Rough was Davey's. To be fair, this was a period when there were very serious pressures on every government department to save money.Daveyboy1961 said:
I thought Rough was closed in 2017/2018, at least 2 years after the election.rcs1000 said:
Yes: I know some people who are being absolutely hammered right now. They'd bet that the weather would be colder, the wind less strong, and that Europe's gas storage would be getting hit.JosiasJessop said:
Basically: Europe's storage facilities are nearly full, and therefore demand is much less. As Europe starts drawing down on those stored stocks during winter, the price will sadly rise again.Yokes said:
I think its down to immediate demand, a lot of demand earlier has now left less immediate delivery needs. Futures prices though are not falling quite as fast.Andy_JS said:
Good news. Why though?FrankBooth said:Collapse in gas prices today.
Also note that there are apparently 35 LNG ships stuck off the cost of Spain, as they cannot get into port to offload...
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dozens-lng-laden-ships-queue-off-europes-coasts-unable-unload-2022-10-17/
But it's not turned out that way yet. Right now, Europe is still filling LNG facilities.
It is incredibly infuriating that ED DAVEY allowed the Rough gas storage facility to close, for want of a very small subsidy when he was a Minister. If he had not, the UK could have picked up a couple of cargoes and those ships could be heading back to Qatar and Texas to pick up their next loads. It would have been good for the UK, good for the EU, and good for Ukraine/0 -
That will depend on the ratio between mortgage costs and increased nominal wages. With inflation at 10% wages are heading in the same direction. When I bought my first property that is what happened to me. It was eye wateringly tight for the first few months but wage increases gradually made the mortgage less significant. My parents, a more extreme example, found their "large" mortgage had been inflated away to such an extent they just paid it off. Consumer spending, and GDP, will be hit for the initial period but new buyers will take out lower multiples and we will adjust.kyf_100 said:
You are right. This is a global problem, not a UK one.DavidL said:
But this is being driven by international gilt rates as the dragon of inflation has once again got loose. The ECB has said that it will be increasing rates by 0.75% at its next meeting and the Fed is clearly not finished yet. Even the BoE will get the message after the last couple of weeks. The days of extremely cheap mortgages have come to an end. This is probably a good thing but obviously uncomfortable for those who assumed it would go on forever.Scott_xP said:As well as inflation rising, mortgage rates are still climbing with 2 yr/ 5 yr fixes above 6%, according to the latest data from MoneyFacts.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-economy-latest-news-inflation-mortgage-rates-12615118 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1582616191004467200/photo/1
The trouble is, when you say "uncomfortable for those who thought this would go on forever" you essentially mean "anyone who has bought a house in the last decade". And that is so many people, its effects on the wider economy will be ruinous. At the very least, it probably means most people aged 30-50 will have approximately zero discretionary income for the foreseeable.0 -
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.bondegezou said:
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?BartholomewRoberts said:
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.0 -
A very naughty boy you arercs1000 said:
Shhhh... I'm trying to annoy @malcolmgOnlyLivingBoy said:
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.rcs1000 said:
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.malcolmg said:
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certainSean_F said:
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?Gardenwalker said:At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/1 -
That's a bar you couldn't limbo under....rcs1000 said:
Shhhh... I'm trying to annoy @malcolmgOnlyLivingBoy said:
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.rcs1000 said:
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.malcolmg said:
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certainSean_F said:
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?Gardenwalker said:At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/3 -
I think I said on here a little while ago that people should not rely on this care home cost cap to be implemented.BartholomewRoberts said:
Good! Abolish that wretched change.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
The taxpayer shouldn't be charged to protect anyone's inheritance.
If you have anything leftover for people to inherit then that should be a bonus, not a way of life.1 -
How is it hindsight when everyone including Sunak pointed out the likely consequences ?Scott_xP said:James Cleverly tells @TimesRadio that “the fundamentals” of the original mini-budget were correct and that questions based on “hindsight” were unfair.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1582619426490155013
It's an idiotic line anyway.
Almost as stupid as the Tory drones going round praising the 'bravery' and 'honesty' of Truss in recognising that she was the driver responsible for the car crash - and then saying that makes her the right person to continue as PM.
2 -
Oooof.
📈 Inflation is 10.1%, BUT
🍲 food inflation has hit 14.6% - THE HIGHEST IN 42 YEARS https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/1582618775639425024/photo/10 -
I have limited sympathy for those people on variable or short rate deals. Particularly those who would have wondered what on earth I was doing fixing for 10 years (now 5.5 years left at 2.49%) and paying a higher rate as a result. The answer to why is very clear to them now.DavidL said:
But this is being driven by international gilt rates as the dragon of inflation has once again got loose. The ECB has said that it will be increasing rates by 0.75% at its next meeting and the Fed is clearly not finished yet. Even the BoE will get the message after the last couple of weeks. The days of extremely cheap mortgages have come to an end. This is probably a good thing but obviously uncomfortable for those who assumed it would go on forever.Scott_xP said:As well as inflation rising, mortgage rates are still climbing with 2 yr/ 5 yr fixes above 6%, according to the latest data from MoneyFacts.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-economy-latest-news-inflation-mortgage-rates-12615118 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1582616191004467200/photo/1
House price inflation has been driven by people taking on very large mortgages which were only affordable if rates stayed at historical lows. Unfortunately many people will now get into serious difficulty paying for them. As sorry as I am for them personally they were taking a gamble. That gamble has now come back to bite them.
Personally I think we should have more of a culture of taking out fixed rate mortgages for the duration of them like I believe happens in the US.1 -
Perhaps Mr. Cleverly could tell us what the focus group said in advance of the mini-budget?Scott_xP said:James Cleverly tells @TimesRadio that “the fundamentals” of the original mini-budget were correct and that questions based on “hindsight” were unfair.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1582619426490155013
I mean, they did focus group this stuff, didn't they?0 -
Why would any Tory challenger want to oust Truss until after Hunt has already made all the necessary decisions around fiscal tightening?
Better to take over with the changes already a fait accompli rather than be associated with the initial decisions.
The same goes for Starmer as well.1 -
He is one of the most slimy creeps in that panopoly of Tory slimeballsOnlyLivingBoy said:
Cleverly talking stupidly.Scott_xP said:James Cleverly tells @TimesRadio that “the fundamentals” of the original mini-budget were correct and that questions based on “hindsight” were unfair.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/15826194264901550130 -
You boys have a high opinion of me, brings tears to my eyesMarqueeMark said:
That's a bar you couldn't limbo under....rcs1000 said:
Shhhh... I'm trying to annoy @malcolmgOnlyLivingBoy said:
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.rcs1000 said:
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.malcolmg said:
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certainSean_F said:
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?Gardenwalker said:At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/0 -
Who is this "Kwarteng" of which you speak? History can find no trace of him....Ratters said:
He does seem to be making more difficult but correct decisions as compared to Sunak's 'load all the expense on the workers' approach.Chris said:I am starting to think that Jeremy Hunt really has the best long-term interests of the country at heart, rather than personal popularity.
If so, the surprising thing would be that he's got so far in the party, not that he'd never be elected leader by the members.
Kwarteng of course not even worth including in the comparison.1 -
What's the antonym of nominative determinism?MarqueeMark said:
Perhaps Mr. Cleverly could tell us what the focus group said in advance of the mini-budget?Scott_xP said:James Cleverly tells @TimesRadio that “the fundamentals” of the original mini-budget were correct and that questions based on “hindsight” were unfair.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1582619426490155013
I mean, they did focus group this stuff, didn't they?2 -
Gove:
Mr Gove said the role of Ms Truss’s boss was “now a job share between Jeremy Hunt and the bond market”. He also said “we all know now” Ms Truss had the nickname “the human hand grenade”.
Mr Gove said “absolutely right [that Truss will go]”, adding: “The question for any leader is: what happens when the programme or the platform on which you secured the leadership has been shredded.”
He also cited Dante in saying: “After hell comes purgatory and paradise.”
Mr Gove later said that [these remarks] had been given under so-called Chatham House rules, which means not to be quoted, but did not dispute their accuracy.0 -
The focus groups at 55 Tufton Street absolutely loved itMarqueeMark said:
Perhaps Mr. Cleverly could tell us what the focus group said in advance of the mini-budget?Scott_xP said:James Cleverly tells @TimesRadio that “the fundamentals” of the original mini-budget were correct and that questions based on “hindsight” were unfair.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1582619426490155013
I mean, they did focus group this stuff, didn't they?
Insert obligatory link to The Thick of It focus group episode here...0 -
Still less than Germany.Scott_xP said:Breaking:
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/15826154610697543692 -
What fundamentals were right?MarqueeMark said:
Perhaps Mr. Cleverly could tell us what the focus group said in advance of the mini-budget?Scott_xP said:James Cleverly tells @TimesRadio that “the fundamentals” of the original mini-budget were correct and that questions based on “hindsight” were unfair.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1582619426490155013
I mean, they did focus group this stuff, didn't they?
The 2019 Tory Manifesto promised a balanced budget so fundamental 1 has to be a balanced budget. Cutting Corporation tax and the 45% band without confirmation from the OBR that the budget was still balanced doesn't exactly show the fundamentals were right.0 -
Well, if you'd actually bothered to spend some time on the site recently, I probably would have resisted the urge to tease you.malcolmg said:
A very naughty boy you arercs1000 said:
Shhhh... I'm trying to annoy @malcolmgOnlyLivingBoy said:
Probably not as Scottish per capita GDP is around the UK average and higher than in Wales, Northern Ireland and most regions of England outside London and the SE.rcs1000 said:
The UK median is dragged down by the turnip eating cretins North of the border.malcolmg said:
Yet they will still be far better off than median UK workers for certainSean_F said:
Inflation is eroding real wages everywhere.BartholomewRoberts said:
Do you have the same chart for Greeks, Germans and other Europeans?Gardenwalker said:At least the very worse off are getting a Brexit payrise, though.
Its entirely possible that people are having both a Brexit payrise and a decline in real wages considering there is huge global inflation - but that the decline in real wages would have been much worse without their Brexit payrise to help cushion the blow.
What I can't get my head around is that the median US worker is hardly paid more than thirty years ago, in real terms, despite economic growth over that period. It's worth noting that US growth per head has only been slightly higher than our own, over that period, but a bit more of our growth has filtered down to median workers than in the US.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
But no. You'd rather hang out in "real life".
Let me tell you this: real life sucks. Political Betting is so much better. The people are nicer. The conversation more intelligent. Nobody yells at you. Or at least, nobody yells at me, because I can always ban them.6 -
Labour will today use an opposition day debate to force a vote on the immediate publication of the OBR forecasts - rather than waiting another fortnight - as well as government documents on how much a further energy windfall tax could raise
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/15826260523668234240 -
Oh, if only that were true...MarqueeMark said:Who is this "Kwarteng" of which you speak? History can find no trace of him....
0 -
Hunt not ruling out canning the triple lock for a second year running. I think if he does both benefits and state pension benefits by the same number it's unfairly fair.
He also has the opportunity to be completely radical and look at a state pension taper, shifting the burden of wage subsidies onto companies with a big rise in the minimum wage and canning working tax credits entirely.
I really hope that he uses this golden opportunity to rebalance the UK economy away from rentseeking and towards risk taking.0 -
It's back to 1980 with next month's CPI figures which will include the Oct Energy increase.
👿👿👿0 -
Bloody Ulster Scots are about ruin it for the Scots.0
-
Not really it means you introduce a wealth tax (in replacement of council tax / stamp duty) and that gives them a few years to spend money.StillWaters said:
The argument - which is plausible but not decisive IMV - is that in achieving a significant but tactical victory over Truss (forcing her to retreat before the power of the markets), Labour has highlighted the debt challenges the country faces and will make it harder for them to increase public spending as they might otherwise have intendedDecrepiterJohnL said:
I'd agree that Hunt's apparent embrace of Osbornian austerity is a bad thing, and that we should still aim at growth. I'm damned if I can see what "the left" has to do with this.Andy_JS said:"The Left has just ushered in an age of austerity
Labour will come to regret siding with the markets and the technocrats
Thomas Fazi"
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-left-has-just-ushered-in-an-age-of-austerity/0 -
Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.
0 -
When I was flagging the food price inflation tsunami months ago I recall various posters pooh-poohing it as 'prices in Waitrose are ok' or words to that effectScott_xP said:Oooof.
📈 Inflation is 10.1%, BUT
🍲 food inflation has hit 14.6% - THE HIGHEST IN 42 YEARS https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/1582618775639425024/photo/12 -
Getting inflation down has to be one of the main priorities for Jeremy Hunt.0
-
It's getting there....Scott_xP said:
Oh, if only that were true...MarqueeMark said:Who is this "Kwarteng" of which you speak? History can find no trace of him....
0 -
What's happened now?TheScreamingEagles said:Bloody Ulster Scots are about ruin it for the Scots.
0 -
How does he do that without cutting out more than half the Cabinet, that would bring down Prime Minister Truss?IanB2 said:Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.
Ah.....1 -
14.6% seems rather on the low end for a lot of things actually.RochdalePioneers said:
When I was flagging the food price inflation tsunami months ago I recall various posters pooh-poohing it as 'prices in Waitrose are ok' or words to that effectScott_xP said:Oooof.
📈 Inflation is 10.1%, BUT
🍲 food inflation has hit 14.6% - THE HIGHEST IN 42 YEARS https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/1582618775639425024/photo/1
Milk, eggs etc seem to have increased by a third or more.1 -
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)DavidL said:
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
0 -
Scotland v. Ireland in the T20 world cup.Carnyx said:
What's happened now?TheScreamingEagles said:Bloody Ulster Scots are about ruin it for the Scots.
Ireland are about to ruin Scotland's hopes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/601178410 -
That might be the arrangement of the cantos in the Divine Comedy, but it sure ain't the actual eschatological trajectory. If the soul ends up in Hell, that's it.IanB2 said:Gove:
Mr Gove said the role of Ms Truss’s boss was “now a job share between Jeremy Hunt and the bond market”. He also said “we all know now” Ms Truss had the nickname “the human hand grenade”.
Mr Gove said “absolutely right [that Truss will go]”, adding: “The question for any leader is: what happens when the programme or the platform on which you secured the leadership has been shredded.”
He also cited Dante in saying: “After hell comes purgatory and paradise.”
Mr Gove later said that [these remarks] had been given under so-called Chatham House rules, which means not to be quoted, but did not dispute their accuracy.1 -
I can confirm that a lot of prices in Waitrose have gone up this year!RochdalePioneers said:
When I was flagging the food price inflation tsunami months ago I recall various posters pooh-poohing it as 'prices in Waitrose are ok' or words to that effectScott_xP said:Oooof.
📈 Inflation is 10.1%, BUT
🍲 food inflation has hit 14.6% - THE HIGHEST IN 42 YEARS https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/1582618775639425024/photo/11 -
It's almost as if she has a different reaction to humiliation than most of the population....AlistairM said:
Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?IanB2 said:Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.
0 -
I've seen the price of the new iPad Pros.
This government has really screwed over the country.
Bloody exchange rates.
0 -
Bully for Ireland, it sounds a good game to watch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Scotland v. Ireland in the T20 world cup.Carnyx said:
What's happened now?TheScreamingEagles said:Bloody Ulster Scots are about ruin it for the Scots.
Ireland are about to ruin Scotland's hopes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60117841
Ed: I wondered if you were blaming the DUP on the Scots!0 -
Rentseeking is the very essence of old skool Toryism. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.MaxPB said:Hunt not ruling out canning the triple lock for a second year running. I think if he does both benefits and state pension benefits by the same number it's unfairly fair.
He also has the opportunity to be completely radical and look at a state pension taper, shifting the burden of wage subsidies onto companies with a big rise in the minimum wage and canning working tax credits entirely.
I really hope that he uses this golden opportunity to rebalance the UK economy away from rentseeking and towards risk taking.0 -
MarqueeMark said:
It's almost as if she has a different reaction to humiliation than most of the population....AlistairM said:
Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?IanB2 said:Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.
...
0 -
A week ago nobody had Jeremy Hunt as de facto PM on their radar.
How did that happen? Amazing.0 -
ANALYSIS: It may only be her third PMQs, but today is a huge test for a PM trying to survive. And she’ll have to do it against backdrop of worsening inflation figures & an emerging rebellion over triple lock.
https://news.sky.com/story/wednesdays-pmqs-is-a-huge-test-for-a-prime-minister-trying-to-survive-from-one-day-to-the-next-12724202 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1582623451638292480/photo/1
Meanwhile, talks cont amongst MPs on options for removing/replacing Truss. One figure told me y’day there was talk of making the nomination threshold to replace her so high (p/hps even 1/3 parly party) to try land on a unity candidate (Hunt/Mordaunt/Sunak?) All v difficult.. 2/0 -
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?StillWaters said:
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)DavidL said:
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?0 -
But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?BartholomewRoberts said:
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.bondegezou said:
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?BartholomewRoberts said:
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
0 -
-
Some of us were on Scotland to win this.Carnyx said:
Bully for Ireland, it sounds a good game to watch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Scotland v. Ireland in the T20 world cup.Carnyx said:
What's happened now?TheScreamingEagles said:Bloody Ulster Scots are about ruin it for the Scots.
Ireland are about to ruin Scotland's hopes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60117841
Ed: I wondered if you were blaming the DUP on the Scots!
Damn you Ireland.1 -
I believe he was a Kwasi-effective chancellorMarqueeMark said:
Who is this "Kwarteng" of which you speak? History can find no trace of him....Ratters said:
He does seem to be making more difficult but correct decisions as compared to Sunak's 'load all the expense on the workers' approach.Chris said:I am starting to think that Jeremy Hunt really has the best long-term interests of the country at heart, rather than personal popularity.
If so, the surprising thing would be that he's got so far in the party, not that he'd never be elected leader by the members.
Kwarteng of course not even worth including in the comparison.
1 -
I read on Twitter yesterday (I know, I know) that Brady told her she’d have to go but not until after a replacement was agreed. The internet, esp Twitter, being the infallible place it is, that must be right.MarqueeMark said:
It's almost as if she has a different reaction to humiliation than most of the population....AlistairM said:
Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?IanB2 said:Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.
0 -
I see Private Eye have nicked my headline.Scott_xP said:MarqueeMark said:
It's almost as if she has a different reaction to humiliation than most of the population....AlistairM said:
Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?IanB2 said:Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.
...
Revolting Tories.0 -
Jack the Ripper killed less than the Yorkshire version, so that's a positive we rarely here.Andy_JS said:
Still less than Germany.Scott_xP said:Breaking:
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/15826154610697543691 -
The basic truth here is that, rather than being a seething mass of vipers, Conservative MPs actually hate removing their leaders and only put a letter in when they feel they have no choice. Equally Cabinet Ministers loathe being the first to move, they've seen how the disloyalty tag is bandied.
- Heseltine's resignation, an event now put into history as the beginning of the end, occurred just shy of 5 years before Thatcher's resignation and moves to oust her took around a year to culminate.
- It was 8 months from first suggestion of a VoNC to remove IDS.
- The timescales for May and Johnson are not dissimilar.
A lot of Tory MPs will be wondering if there is any way of avoiding this. Can a more administrative government settle the polls a bit? It is clear Truss is suffering some b kind of nervous condition, but can she stabilise it? (Johnson also looked terrible at times from very early in his PMship for very different reasons). Can she be the effective front person in an election campaign?
It is the likely negative response to the last question that will determine her fate, but history say it won't be an easy decision for any MP to get there.0 -
Doesn’t raise as a much as you think - from memory a 1% rate net of stamp duty and council tax raises about £40-50bn. Meaningful but still less than half the deficiteek said:
Not really it means you introduce a wealth tax (in replacement of council tax / stampStillWaters said:
The argument - which is plausible but not decisive IMV - is that in achieving a significant but tactical victory over Truss (forcing her to retreat before the power of the markets), Labour has highlighted the debt challenges the country faces and will make it harder for them to increase public spending as they might otherwise have intendedDecrepiterJohnL said:
I'd agree that Hunt's apparent embrace of Osbornian austerity is a bad thing, and that we should still aim at growth. I'm damned if I can see what "the left" has to do with this.Andy_JS said:"The Left has just ushered in an age of austerity
Labour will come to regret siding with the markets and the technocrats
Thomas Fazi"
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-left-has-just-ushered-in-an-age-of-austerity/
Lduty) and that gives them a few years to spend money.0 -
Maybe he realises the party’s over at the next election (metaphorically and possibly literally) and wants to clean up some of the mess before the adults get back.Chris said:I am starting to think that Jeremy Hunt really has the best long-term interests of the country at heart, rather than personal popularity.
If so, the surprising thing would be that he's got so far in the party, not that he'd never be elected leader by the members.
1 -
That is comforting , I can go shopping happy now.Andy_JS said:
Still less than Germany.Scott_xP said:Breaking:
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/15826154610697543690 -
Well. He wasn't the only option. Far from it.Andy_JS said:
Truss realised appointing him was the only way to take the pressure off her own position, albeit only for potentially a short time.dixiedean said:A week ago nobody had Jeremy Hunt as de facto PM on their radar.
How did that happen? Amazing.
History may record it as a leftfield good call. Perhaps the only one she'll make as PM.0 -
Of course! The previous market price was below cost...BartholomewRoberts said:
14.6% seems rather on the low end for a lot of things actually.RochdalePioneers said:
When I was flagging the food price inflation tsunami months ago I recall various posters pooh-poohing it as 'prices in Waitrose are ok' or words to that effectScott_xP said:Oooof.
📈 Inflation is 10.1%, BUT
🍲 food inflation has hit 14.6% - THE HIGHEST IN 42 YEARS https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/1582618775639425024/photo/1
Milk, eggs etc seem to have increased by a third or more.0 -
He is illiterate on anything to do with economics.bondegezou said:
But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?BartholomewRoberts said:
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.bondegezou said:
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?BartholomewRoberts said:
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.1 -
Only until the Eschaton - so there is light at the end of the tunnelCarnyx said:
That might be the arrangement of the cantos in the Divine Comedy, but it sure ain't the actual eschatological trajectory. If the soul ends up in Hell, that's it.IanB2 said:Gove:
Mr Gove said the role of Ms Truss’s boss was “now a job share between Jeremy Hunt and the bond market”. He also said “we all know now” Ms Truss had the nickname “the human hand grenade”.
Mr Gove said “absolutely right [that Truss will go]”, adding: “The question for any leader is: what happens when the programme or the platform on which you secured the leadership has been shredded.”
He also cited Dante in saying: “After hell comes purgatory and paradise.”
Mr Gove later said that [these remarks] had been given under so-called Chatham House rules, which means not to be quoted, but did not dispute their accuracy.
1 -
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.BartholomewRoberts said:
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?StillWaters said:
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)DavidL said:
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?0 -
Yes. People should be able to rebuild their lives and the fact they have shouldn't mean that debtors who made bad choices investing in them before they did shouldn't be able to evade the consequences of their own choices.bondegezou said:
But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?BartholomewRoberts said:
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.bondegezou said:
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?BartholomewRoberts said:
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
Responsibility cuts both ways.0 -
Why should the Party consider only what is good for the party? I don't want a mentally or physically unstable person as Prime Minister. Edit: As a general principle. It's not aimed at Ms Truss specifically at all. Indeed, one thinks of Harold Wilson - who had the guts to pull the chain when he realised he was going mentally, AIUI.Pro_Rata said:The basic truth here is that, rather than being a seething mass of vipers, Conservative MPs actually hate removing their leaders and only put a letter in when they feel they have no choice. Equally Cabinet Ministers loathe being the first to move, they've seen how the disloyalty tag is bandied.
- Heseltine's resignation, an event now put into history as the beginning of the end, occurred just shy of 5 years before Thatcher's resignation and moves to oust her took around a year to culminate.
- It was 8 months from first suggestion of a VoNC to remove IDS.
- The timescales for May and Johnson are not dissimilar.
A lot of Tory MPs will be wondering if there is any way of avoiding this. Can a more administrative government settle the polls a bit? It is clear Truss is suffering some b kind of nervous condition, but can she stabilise it? (Johnson also looked terrible at times from very early in his PMship for very different reasons). Can she be the effective front person in an election campaign?
It is the likely negative response to the last question that will determine her fate, but history say it won't be an easy decision for any MP to get there.0 -
I’m sure overstretched households up and down this country take great comfort in that. 🙄Andy_JS said:
Still less than Germany.Scott_xP said:Breaking:
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/15826154610697543691 -
Glad to see BR volunteering other people's families for calamity again. Death, poverty, bankruptcy - as long as it is Other People he is all for it0
-
German inflation 10.0%Andy_JS said:
Still less than Germany.Scott_xP said:Breaking:
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/15826154610697543690 -
Don't forget you have your big 10.1% pension increase coming... probablymalcolmg said:
That is comforting , I can go shopping happy now.Andy_JS said:
Still less than Germany.Scott_xP said:Breaking:
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/15826154610697543690 -
Riot. Illness.StillWaters said:
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.BartholomewRoberts said:
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?StillWaters said:
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)DavidL said:
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?0 -
I was chatting to someone who had a drink with him last week. He was chuntering on about the new book he was writing, life after losing his seat, etcNigelb said:
No one more amazed than Hunt, reportedlydixiedean said:A week ago nobody had Jeremy Hunt as de facto PM on their radar.
How did that happen? Amazing.
He didn't take Truss's calls as he thought it was a prank. No10 had to then contact his constituency office.
He wasn’t expecting this!1 -
I’m sure that households up and down this country will be reassured and comforted by that.DougSeal said:
Still less than Germany.Scott_xP said:Breaking:
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1582615461069754369
It was just an observation, it wasn't supposed to comfort people.0 -
Question.
Which month's figures are used for determining the rise in phone/broadband contract prices?0 -
Inflation is a lagging indicator.0
-
Little wonder he has that slightly mad grin again.StillWaters said:
I was chatting to someone who had a drink with him last week. He was chuntering on about the new book he was writing, life after losing his seat, etcNigelb said:
No one more amazed than Hunt, reportedlydixiedean said:A week ago nobody had Jeremy Hunt as de facto PM on their radar.
How did that happen? Amazing.
He didn't take Truss's calls as he thought it was a prank. No10 had to then contact his constituency office.
He wasn’t expecting this!0 -
War, too? At least in WW2?Ishmael_Z said:
Riot. Illness.StillWaters said:
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.BartholomewRoberts said:
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?StillWaters said:
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)DavidL said:
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Damage_Commission0 -
Creditors have "invested in" their debtors?BartholomewRoberts said:
Yes. People should be able to rebuild their lives and the fact they have shouldn't mean that debtors who made bad choices investing in them before they did shouldn't be able to evade the consequences of their own choices.bondegezou said:
But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?BartholomewRoberts said:
No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.bondegezou said:
To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?BartholomewRoberts said:
What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.
They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.
It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.
I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
Responsibility cuts both ways.0 -
Is that a home insulation pun?Casino_Royale said:Inflation is a lagging indicator.
0 -
December.ydoethur said:Question.
Which month's figures are used for determining the rise in phone/broadband contract prices?0 -
Given the likely life expectancy of the Truss Ministry, it hardly seems worth the hassle.IanB2 said:Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.
0 -
One other point - home care not being insurable at an economic price. It may depend on the case. A friend's mother went down with MS when quite elderly, and the family took out an annuity for her care costs in a decent home. In the end she survived a lot longer than expected.Ishmael_Z said:
Riot. Illness.StillWaters said:
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.BartholomewRoberts said:
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?StillWaters said:
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)DavidL said:
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?0 -
The Bill for social care Cap has received royal assent. In fact, in a sense it has been passed twice. Once by Cameron and once by Johnson. The trials for the Cap start in next couple of months.Ishmael_Z said:
Riot. Illness.StillWaters said:
Earthquakes. Financial services. Nuclear accidents. I’m sure there are others but these are just off the top of my head.BartholomewRoberts said:
Where else is this "catastrophe insurance" you speak of also provided by the taxpayer?StillWaters said:
In practice the obligation of care means that neither the care hone nor the local authority wants the resident to move homes. Typically it ends up with the LA paying a slightly discounted rate (but not the usual LA rate for fully private homes - for mixed homes they switch straight to the LA rate)DavidL said:
They won't be bankrupted, but they may need to a cheaper, publicly run home funded by the LA once the money runs out.StillWaters said:
Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).Gardenwalker said:
Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.MikeL said:LATEST CUT:
Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.
Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.
It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
But I have never got this about the cap: why is it more important to protect some peoples' (chosen at random) inheritance than the public purse? Why should we pay when there is money left in the estate to pay? The cap was going to be paid by the NI increases, that is by current working people under retirement age so that a very small percentage of them could receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the family home. If people want to be sure of this they should buy insurance. I don't see why the state becomes "insurer of last resort" for those who choose not to.
The issue is that the vast majority (high 90s %) of people are under 2 years but that a small number can be very many years. That’s not an insurable risk at an economic price.
The argument for the government providing catastrophe insurance is whether it is good for society that someone who has saved and done all the right things should be bankrupted by bad luck.
That’s why I like the model of first 2 years you pay for yourself, years 3-5 by insurance and >5 by society
If your uninsured home or business gets flooded in a catastrophe does the taxpayer foot the bill?
If your business goes bankrupt losing you your life savings that you'd put into it, does the taxpayer foot the bill?
It is beyond a disgrace that this is once again going to be abandoned.
Plus, the reform is about other issues than just the Cap.
Unless you have direct day-to-day experience of the social care system (I have) you have no idea how broken and not fit for purpose it is. And getting worse all the time.
1 -
March / April I think for BTydoethur said:Question.
Which month's figures are used for determining the rise in phone/broadband contract prices?0 -
They should. Had it not been for our glorious Brexit, the EUSSR would be forcing nasty straight European bananas on us and demanding a 30% price premium.DougSeal said:
I’m sure overstretched households up and down this country take great comfort in that. 🙄Andy_JS said:
Still less than Germany.Scott_xP said:Breaking:
Inflation has hit 10.1%, a 40 year record
It’s the figure usually used to calculate rises in benefits and pensions - a link No 10 is now prepared to break
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/15826154610697543690 -
This thread has been admitted to a care home.1
This discussion has been closed.