Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
I'm starting to be tempted to move there.
I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.
Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
+1 for the US. In the last 3 months I've come to the same conclusion. Hoping Biden stays in and keeps investing in infrastructure.
At this rate won't just be Sunak, but half of PB emigrating to the US.
This is how brain drains happen.
If you go won't you send me a letter from America...
PB is going to get pretty dull otherwise.
It's always the soi disant patriots that want to quit the country...
Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.
Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
I found the image a pleasing one.
Of course I know that all the tech bros have moved on the USB sticks for their CVs now.
All in the cloud.
One of my ex-students puts affiliate marketing links, ads and discount codes on his CV. He reckons he's made quite a bit of money doing it but doesn't seem to have a job and seems to spend his days crewing yachts around the Greek islands.
Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru are presumably desperately hoping that Geraint Thomas can get eight minutes back on Tadej Pogacar in today's penultimate stage of the Giro d'Italia.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
When I did my PhD in the early 2000s I had enough money that, combined with my wife's junior civil servant salary and about £30k in savings from my previous job, we could buy our first home aged 26. Sucks being young now, they are poorer.
My PhD / D.Phil was a placement so I got a bit more than the stipend but it was certainly enough. I saved about 8k (in the mid 90s) over 3 years, although I am cheap. It was useful research though and not in some obscure bit of literature.
Going back to the stupid thresholds - because I'm cheap and live somewhere cheap - never mind the 100k threshold, I cut my hours rather than pay 40% tax. All stupid cut-offs have consequences.
I haven't been posting much recently partly as we are spending time with our son and daughter visiting us from Vancouver
However, I do read some posters asking why Sunak called the election for 4th July
Sunak, for all his faults, knows economics and he looked into the Autumn and concluded that tax cuts were impossible and with the dreadful PSBR he knew the next government will have to slash spending and increase taxes which is not sustainable politically for him
Furthermore, his party were in a public civil war with the possibility they could try to vonc him, so he literally 'pulled the pin' and in that one decision not only handed the keys of no 10 to Starmer but ensured his party would face their deserved comeuppance and time in opposition to decide just who they are and who they want to represent
It seems 30% plus of the intake of mps will be new which will be interesting to witness
I would just add that Sunak has handed Labour an early present and to be fair, I do not like some of the current abuse he is receiving which is unnecessary and may please the haters but does nothing to further political debate and the safety to all those brave enough to stand for public office in todays environment
Thoughtful post, and I hope your son is feeling better. IIRC he’s been having a tough time.
I must admit I hadn’t thought of poor long term economic news being a factor in Sunak’s decision, but on reflection, as you say, he’s an economist and just maybe he can read the runes better than some. I don’t know how many new MP’s there were in 1945, but I do recall that the 1919 Parliament had “hard-faced men who’d done well out of the war’ and the next couple of Parliaments needed time to settle down.
News summary on Magic: "the Tories hint at tax breaks for high earners, while Labour concentrates on the cost of living crisis..." - sums up why the Tories will get their arse handed to them on a plate.
Or it tells you the Tories are fighting a defensive strategy and Labour are playing to win.
Sunak's job is to pick the strategy that will maximise the number of seats he gets. If he tried the latter he might get no votes at all.
Maybe, but I wonder if that old Tory base of high earners still constitutes their bedrock of support. Plenty of them were turned off the Tories by Brexit and the Trussterfuck. I'd have thought something around Rwanda is their best bet for a core vote strategy. But you are probably better placed to understand this than I am.
I think it’s both isn’t it? On one hand he needs the reliable blue rinsers to turn out in the rural/semi-rural shire seats. They are, crudely, motivated by things like IHT and pensions and house prices and income tax and immigration.
The professional working Tories are the ones who are less visible nowadays but I sense still a decent contingent (I.e the middle classes who would never admit to their friends that they vote Tory but in the privacy of the polling booth feel they have their economic interests more at heart). Stuff like Rwanda puts them off but the gamble is that the messaging around tax keeps them in the Tory column.
Then there are the Brexity right wing types who might be a bit more motivated by things like Rwanda albeit that I don’t think it’s cut through because these folk don’t trust the Tories on immigration anyway.
The balancing act is keeping enough of that coalition together/motivated to go to the polls to manage a heavy but respectable defeat. I think that’s why they will probably go on both (or rather, they will emphasise the perceived danger of Labour in respect of both areas).
Seems to have been the case for the last 16 years.
If recent years have shown us anything, the usual political rules in this country are that once a party are embedded in power they are very difficult to lever out of it. That’s why “bad one to win” is a rather silly statement. If you’re in government, based on trends, you have a good chance of continuing in government.
We have had 10 elections since and including 1983. Only in two of those has the incumbent party lost.
I haven't been posting much recently partly as we are spending time with our son and daughter visiting us from Vancouver
However, I do read some posters asking why Sunak called the election for 4th July
Sunak, for all his faults, knows economics and he looked into the Autumn and concluded that tax cuts were impossible and with the dreadful PSBR he knew the next government will have to slash spending and increase taxes which is not sustainable politically for him
Furthermore, his party were in a public civil war with the possibility they could try to vonc him, so he literally 'pulled the pin' and in that one decision not only handed the keys of no 10 to Starmer but ensured his party would face their deserved comeuppance and time in opposition to decide just who they are and who they want to represent
It seems 30% plus of the intake of mps will be new which will be interesting to witness
I would just add that Sunak has handed Labour an early present and to be fair, I do not like some of the current abuse he is receiving which is unnecessary and may please the haters but does nothing to further political debate and the safety to all those brave enough to stand for public office in todays environment
Thoughtful post, and I hope your son is feeling better. IIRC he’s been having a tough time.
I must admit I hadn’t thought of poor long term economic news being a factor in Sunak’s decision, but on reflection, as you say, he’s an economist and just maybe he can read the runes better than some. I don’t know how many new MP’s there were in 1945, but I do recall that the 1919 Parliament had “hard-faced men who’d done well out of the war’ and the next couple of Parliaments needed time to settle down.
Thank you for your comments and our eldest son is making good progress over his terrible PTSD following the scenes he saw in the Christchurch earthquake disaster in 2011
I do think the PSBR which was lost in the inflation figures was a part of his judgment as it is a shocking figure
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
Seems to have been the case for the last 16 years.
If recent years have shown us anything, the usual political rules in this country are that once a party are embedded in power they are very difficult to lever out of it. That’s why “bad one to win” is a rather silly statement. If you’re in government, based on trends, you have a good chance of continuing in government.
We have had 10 elections since and including 1983. Only in two of those has the incumbent party lost.
Absolutely, however each election since 2008 seems to have had some large looming shit show for whoever wins to have to deal with. If you think of the Blair wins the winner got a nice stable situation in general but since then you’ve had clearing up the GFC mess/ there’s no money left, Brexit messes, Covid and Ukraine mess.
None of these messes are small fry and it looks like whoever (haha) wins this one is going to have a pile of dung economically to wade through before they can even think about doing the things they really want.
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
.....on a need to know basis.........like Lily Allen.....there I was just fiddling around and......well you could've knoked me down with a feather!
Small town in Hampshire. Big village really. Yesterday at 3pm I had an appointment at my accountant.
Four protestors (all but one with grey hair) outside the town all. Made no noise. One had a massive Palestinian flag. The others held up a banner saying: 'ceasefire now'. They were there for 30 minutes - during which no-one paid them the slightest bit of attention, not that there many around anyway - and then they left.
The men’s Euros will have no impact. It’s not far enough into the tournament.
If it had been after the QF’s or SF’s then perhaps some influence but three group matches and a round of 16 for Scotland and England, though not Wales or Northern Ireland, are not going set pulses racing. The opponents don’t get serious until after the General Election date.
The only possible impact would be a negative one if either country is knocked out prior to the QF’s.
Next straw clutch please
Agreed. The only effect will be negative if england are knocked out. England are expected to get to the quarters anyway.
Highlight for me is when he criticises his aides for planting Tory councillors as members of the public and being found out: We didn't think anybody would notice. You put them in hi-vis jackets!
Highlight for me is when he criticises his aides for planting Tory councillors as members of the public and being found out: We didn't think anybody would notice. You put them in hi-vis jackets!
The genre is variable in quality but this is one of the best ones I’ve seen. The quality examples get the timing and the matching of words with mannerisms just right.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
If Sunak says stop being such fucking pussies that would certainly enliven the campaign.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
If you are prepared to shop around using Booking.com etc and budget chain websites you can still get reasonable deals, although they are fewer and farther between than they were. My son was working on Bridgerton in Bakewell, fully intending to travel back and forth to Barry each day despite early starts. I got him a Travelodge in Ashbourne for £34 (room only)over a number of days which was cheaper than his petrol. On the basis of safety first I paid.
I am of an age where a Travelodge is very much a last resort.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Trouble is, you'd have to coach Rishi to say that without sounding tetchy. The best time to have done that would have been while he was still in obscurity. It's almost certainly too late now.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
If Sunak says stop being such fucking pussies that would certainly enliven the campaign.
I'm sure he's classy enough to tidy up the language. I'm just a Norfolk boy. But, seriously, sometimes you just have to punch an egg thrower.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Surely that already is the strategy? Regardless of the question, his response is to say he's there to talk about his plan, and how it's all working marvellously.
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
If you are prepared to shop around using Booking.com etc and budget chain websites you can still get reasonable deals, although they are fewer and farther between than they were. My son was working on Bridgerton in Bakewell, fully intending to travel back and forth to Barry each day despite early starts. I got him a Travelodge in Ashbourne for £34 (room only)over a number of days which was cheaper than his petrol. On the basis of safety first I paid.
I am of an age where a Travelodge is very much a last resort.
It’s not everyone’s cup of tea but for the odd night away, pub accommodation is sometimes fantastic value (check reviews first, make sure not too lairy/noisy).
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Trouble is, you'd have to coach Rishi to say that without sounding tetchy. The best time to have done that would have been while he was still in obscurity. It's almost certainly too late now.
I mean they are hopeless and I don't care what he does, but for his own self respect, show some bloody backbone. Run up the wicket at the quicks and bunt them back over their heads, wind them up, get the crowd itchy. Do something, anything. Its pitiful. And irritating.
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
Why don't you call them actresses - is somebody stopping you?
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
You will be lucky to get a hotel room in the centre of Edinburgh for less than £200 per night. Even Manchester you would struggle to get much for less than £150 per night. Our standard of living is being adjusted downward.
All cliff edges in the tax system should be abolished, they're completely unjustifiable.
The idea that people on UC, or £50k, or £100k should face net marginal tax rates of 80-100%+ while beyond that its a peak of 47% marginal tax rate is just completely insane.
We should have a smooth tax system without any cliff edges.
The Tories have had 14 years to fix the system and haven't unfortunately. I don't hold my breath that Labour will either.
Natasha Clark @NatashaC Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Seems to have been the case for the last 16 years.
If recent years have shown us anything, the usual political rules in this country are that once a party are embedded in power they are very difficult to lever out of it. That’s why “bad one to win” is a rather silly statement. If you’re in government, based on trends, you have a good chance of continuing in government.
We have had 10 elections since and including 1983. Only in two of those has the incumbent party lost.
In 2015 one of the incumbent parties lost pretty badly too!
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Surely that already is the strategy? Regardless of the question, his response is to say he's there to talk about his plan, and how it's all working marvellously.
Nah, that's too bland. You have to put it back to the voters, give that sense of empowerment and choice and set yourself above the gotcha obsessed wannabe stand ups in the media. Even if you are a simpering mouse for 6 weeks you've got to fake being a Honey Badger with a bag of gifts. Own the room. He's too comfortable squeaking in the corner with his cheese.
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
You will be lucky to get a hotel room in the centre of Edinburgh for less than £200 per night. Even Manchester you would struggle to get much for less than £150 per night. Our standard of living is being adjusted downward.
By "lucky" you mean, spending less than 2 minutes on Google Maps. It's not as easy during the Festival, granted. But look on there right now and you'll see tonnes of options for way less than £200.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Trouble is, you'd have to coach Rishi to say that without sounding tetchy. The best time to have done that would have been while he was still in obscurity. It's almost certainly too late now.
When you have nothing to sell the task is harder.
Back in my younger days I worked in sales with products that were sometimes vastly inferior and more expensive than the competition. The only weapon in the arsenal is to say your opponent's offering is cheaper because it is poor quality and their service is substandard. You know that is utter rubbish but the mortgage has to be paid and your wife/ girlfriend kept in relative luxury. Rishi has only this option left to him. Sometimes it worked, sometimes you were laughed at. If I was desperate to close the sale would I reluctantly suggest (as Boris Johnson has today alluded) my competitors were friends with Jimmy Savile. It may be morally outrageous but might have been worth a try if the current account was overdrawn.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Natasha Clark @NatashaC Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
This is where Sunak should be on the phone to him, like now. Its the perfect counter to the Gove exit. But no, he'll 'give him some space to think' and then if Street announces drown it out by visiting somewhere in Jersey called 'Clusterfuck'
I wrote a thing about the Tory campaign so far: “sometimes, when you’re on the ropes getting repeatedly punched in the face it’s not a rope-a-dope strategy: it’s just you on the ropes getting repeatedly punched in the face”
Natasha Clark @NatashaC Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
This is where Sunak should be on the phone to him, like now. Its the perfect counter to the Gove exit. But no, he'll 'give him some space to think' and then if Street announces drown it out by visiting somewhere in Jersey called 'Clusterfuck'
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
You will be lucky to get a hotel room in the centre of Edinburgh for less than £200 per night. Even Manchester you would struggle to get much for less than £150 per night. Our standard of living is being adjusted downward.
By "lucky" you mean, spending less than 2 minutes on Google Maps. It's not as easy during the Festival, granted. But look on there right now and you'll see tonnes of options for way less than £200.
I wrote a thing about the Tory campaign so far: “sometimes, when you’re on the ropes getting repeatedly punched in the face it’s not a rope-a-dope strategy: it’s just you on the ropes getting repeatedly punched in the face”
Natasha Clark @NatashaC Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
This is where Sunak should be on the phone to him, like now. Its the perfect counter to the Gove exit. But no, he'll 'give him some space to think' and then if Street announces drown it out by visiting somewhere in Jersey called 'Clusterfuck'
His visit to my house is supposed to be a secret, who’s leaking?
One thing that a couple of people here miss is the impact of demographics on the need for construction.
I've seen time and again people make the fallacy that as Scotland's population is relatively stable it shouldn't need much construction.
That's only the case if the demographics are stable, they're not.
Children live with their parents. Parents of children live with their children. (Great-)Grandparents tend to live on their own.
If the population is stable but the demographics mean we now have fewer children and more elderly, then that means we need more houses.
Even in Scotland though the population is not stable, there is growth, but there is also quite considerable demographic change so there needs to be construction to keep up.
SF really appear to have weathered the changes of the 21st century far better than the DUP (despite the latter initially doing well to eclipse the UUP).
Under FPTP, it's who stands that matters. The TUV stood aside in 2019 and most of their support voted DUP. This time they're standing and they're unlikely to win any seats, but they'll hurt the DUP badly. That might benefit Alliance most.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
To a degree I agree, as the questions can be ridiculous, but there is a danger in looking evasive and petulant if you not only ignore what you are asked, but pissily request to be asked about the things you'd rather be talking about. Like Corbyn angrily requesting to be asked about the NHS for example.
He is in a difficult position - if they had some good popular things to talk about they'd surely already have been talking about them, and anything newly announced will be called desperate and met with a rejoinder of why not do something about it in the last 14 years - but just being more combative may not be the answer.
Seems like it was fake news Rishi was having the day off today...he has gone to spoons like he loves to do for breakfast...shakes head. We know he doesn't drink and is very health conscious (other than his coke addition), nobody is going to believe he is down the spoons with the alkies for a big breakfast out of choice.
Speaking to the veterans - whose group includes ex-servicemen from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines - Mr Sunak revealed that the pub is a favourite place that he 'very occasionally' goes to for breakfast after a park run.
hard to overstate how absolutely furious many SNP candidates are that John Swinney has decided expenses-cheat and serial liar Michael Matheson must be defended. "Now I'm to tell people there’s no problem and Michael shouldn’t be punished? Well, fuck that," says one.
hard to overstate how absolutely furious many SNP candidates are that John Swinney has decided expenses-cheat and serial liar Michael Matheson must be defended. "Now I'm to tell people there’s no problem and Michael shouldn’t be punished? Well, fuck that," says one.
Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.
Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
I found the image a pleasing one.
Of course I know that all the tech bros have moved on the USB sticks for their CVs now.
All in the cloud.
One of my ex-students puts affiliate marketing links, ads and discount codes on his CV. He reckons he's made quite a bit of money doing it but doesn't seem to have a job and seems to spend his days crewing yachts around the Greek islands.
What an awful life. Being on a yacht. In the Greek Islands. I feel terrible for him. I how he can get a nice secure office job back in the UK soon.
I spent hours on the phone, yesterday, looking for an SNP politician willing - or even able - to explain why Swinney's decision to back Matheson makes any sense. I was unsuccessful.
Seems like it was fake news Rishi was having the day off today...he has gone to spoons like he loves to do for breakfast...shakes head.
Speaking to the veterans - whose group includes ex-servicemen from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines - Mr Sunak revealed that the pub is a favourite place that he 'very occasionally' goes to for breakfast after a park run.
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
Why don't you call them actresses - is somebody stopping you?
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
The other reason is in a climate of high inflation it gives businesses cover to raise prices above and beyond inflation and that is what has happened across the board. When inflation is very low, as it has been for 10+ years, people are very price sensitive and so companies had to be very careful over the smallest of price rises, once you start getting 10% inflation, nobody notices if you make it 12-13% increase. Factor in also after the pandemic people went mad for a year or two, as they had saved money and wanted to make up for all the missed trips had already inflated travel costs.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Talking of food, I hope everybody is getting their daily rock requirements in, as recommended by Google AI. I am also really looking for to my pizza with glue sauce recipe it gave me.
Natasha Clark @NatashaC Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
This is where Sunak should be on the phone to him, like now. Its the perfect counter to the Gove exit. But no, he'll 'give him some space to think' and then if Street announces drown it out by visiting somewhere in Jersey called 'Clusterfuck'
I'm on at 36 for next leader.
Good morning everyone.
Just been out to inspect our local Park Run, and since it's all on suitable paths, to trace the route backwards on the e-folder. Lots of good mornings, and no problems or mud.
Lots of mobility aid blocking barriers on all the entries to the Green Flag Country Park, however. All the fishermen with mobility scooters and tents will have come in through the daytime-only motor vehicle entrance, or done some very careful manoeuvring.
'Accessible to all' is supposed to be a core criteria of Green Flag, so self-assessment is a problem and the GF scheme need a plonk with a cluebat.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Starmer was interviewed on Good Morning Britain a couple weeks back. Two thirds of the interview was, do you think women have penises? The rest was, why haven't you studied Angela Rayner's tax returns in depth?. Many on here thought he was gotcha'd by this interview.
Genuinely, what do you think he should have done? I would be tempted to say, do you have anything serious to ask me? But Starmer played it safe and engaged, if not particularly well.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
He'd walk Solihull. If he wants to shape Conservatism he should go for it.
Candidates have to be signed, sealed and delivered by 7/6 so he has a fortnight from yesterday to weigh up his options, but in practice less because he (and Boris?) will want to grab a safe seat.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Starmer was interviewed on Good Morning Britain a couple weeks back. Two thirds of the interview was, do you think women have penises? The rest was, why haven't you studied Angela Rayner's tax returns in depth?. Many on here thought he was gotcha'd by this interview.
Genuinely, what do you think he should have done? I would be tempted to say, do you have anything serious to ask me? But Starmer played it safe and engaged, if not particularly well.
Starmer is on the front foot by default so doesn't need to risk going on the assault, he's not 'beleaguered' (yet) Sunak is being buried and just smiling like it's all terribly nice and jolly good fun.
So in SKS case, he should have answered honestly 'I think people who identify as female are female, yes' if that's his view. If he's not prepared to say that then he either doesn't believe it or he's scared it will make him unpopular. I suspect his fear of losing a few votes outweighs any principle he thinks his stance represents, hence being tied in a knot.
Be forthright. As a people we are becoming terrified not just of 'offending' but of being guilty of 'wrongthink'. What you believe is what you believe and stand for and if someone is "offended' then so what? Being in a state of offended is not a serious condition and quickly heals.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Yes, I was the one who called you out on that.
No you were not, I called you out on it. I've been banging on about it for years as part of why we need more construction.
Something you weasel against, again today you were bringing up the fallacy by talking just about population growth and omitting demographics.
Scotland's population is aging faster than England's. So no you can not just compare population growth and say that you don't need construction, you do.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Yes, I was the one who called you out on that.
No you were not, I called you out on it. I've been banging on about it for years as part of why we need more construction.
Something you weasel against, again today you were bringing up the fallacy by talking just about population growth and omitting demographics.
Scotland's population is aging faster than England's. So no you can not just compare population growth and say that you don't need construction, you do.
The total number of dwellings in Scotland has grown by 8%. The population by 3%. Households by 6%.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Yes, I was the one who called you out on that.
No you were not, I called you out on it. I've been banging on about it for years as part of why we need more construction.
Something you weasel against, again today you were bringing up the fallacy by talking just about population growth and omitting demographics.
Scotland's population is aging faster than England's. So no you can not just compare population growth and say that you don't need construction, you do.
The total number of dwellings in Scotland has grown by 8%. The population by 3%. Households by 6%.
Woops.
Meaningless bullshit statistics for reasons you've been called out on by numerous people time and again.
Thick as two short planks if it's not sank in yer.
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
He'd walk Solihull. If he wants to shape Conservatism he should go for it.
Candidates have to be signed, sealed and delivered by 7/6 so he has a fortnight from yesterday to weigh up his options, but in practice less because he (and Boris?) will want to grab a safe seat.
I thought that even Boris thought that his Parliamentary ship had sailed. I suspect both the Tories and Reform are doing some arm-twisting behind the scenes as far as candidates are concerned.
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Starmer was interviewed on Good Morning Britain a couple weeks back. Two thirds of the interview was, do you think women have penises? The rest was, why haven't you studied Angela Rayner's tax returns in depth?. Many on here thought he was gotcha'd by this interview.
Genuinely, what do you think he should have done? I would be tempted to say, do you have anything serious to ask me? But Starmer played it safe and engaged, if not particularly well.
Starmer is on the front foot by default so doesn't need to risk going on the assault, he's not 'beleaguered' (yet) Sunak is being buried and just smiling like it's all terribly nice and jolly good fun.
So in SKS case, he should have answered honestly 'I think people who identify as female are female, yes' if that's his view. If he's not prepared to say that then he either doesn't believe it or he's scared it will make him unpopular. I suspect his fear of losing a few votes outweighs any principle he thinks his stance represents, hence being tied in a knot.
Be forthright. As a people we are becoming terrified not just of 'offending' but of being guilty of 'wrongthink'. What you believe is what you believe and stand for and if someone is "offended' then so what? Being in a state of offended is not a serious condition and quickly heals.
Thanks but I think "honestly" in Starmer's case is "those are stupid questions". To your original point.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Yes, I was the one who called you out on that.
No you were not, I called you out on it. I've been banging on about it for years as part of why we need more construction.
Something you weasel against, again today you were bringing up the fallacy by talking just about population growth and omitting demographics.
Scotland's population is aging faster than England's. So no you can not just compare population growth and say that you don't need construction, you do.
The total number of dwellings in Scotland has grown by 8%. The population by 3%. Households by 6%.
Woops.
Meaningless bullshit statistics for reasons you've been called out on by numerous people time and again.
Thick as two short planks if it's not sank in yer.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
The other reason is in a climate of high inflation it gives businesses cover to raise prices above and beyond inflation and that is what has happened across the board. When inflation is very low, as it has been for 10+ years, people are very price sensitive and so companies had to be very careful over the smallest of price rises, once you start getting 10% inflation, nobody notices if you make it 12-13% increase. Factor in also after the pandemic people went mad for a year or two, as they had saved money and wanted to make up for all the missed trips had already inflated travel costs.
Technically speaking, it's impossible for prices to rise faster than inflation across the board.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Yes, I was the one who called you out on that.
No you were not, I called you out on it. I've been banging on about it for years as part of why we need more construction.
Something you weasel against, again today you were bringing up the fallacy by talking just about population growth and omitting demographics.
Scotland's population is aging faster than England's. So no you can not just compare population growth and say that you don't need construction, you do.
The total number of dwellings in Scotland has grown by 8%. The population by 3%. Households by 6%.
Woops.
Meaningless bullshit statistics for reasons you've been called out on by numerous people time and again.
Thick as two short planks if it's not sank in yer.
That's not very nice.
Sorry.
Neither is you completely disregarding everything everyone else says to you time and again then going "Woops". 🤷♂️
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Yes, I was the one who called you out on that.
No you were not, I called you out on it. I've been banging on about it for years as part of why we need more construction.
Something you weasel against, again today you were bringing up the fallacy by talking just about population growth and omitting demographics.
Scotland's population is aging faster than England's. So no you can not just compare population growth and say that you don't need construction, you do.
The total number of dwellings in Scotland has grown by 8%. The population by 3%. Households by 6%.
Woops.
Meaningless bullshit statistics for reasons you've been called out on by numerous people time and again.
Thick as two short planks if it's not sank in yer.
That's not very nice.
Sorry.
Neither is you completely disregarding everything everyone else says to you time and again then going "Woops". 🤷♂️
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
Maybe the non relaunch relaunch crisis conference will come up with what Sunak, or indeed any beleaguered politician should do, which is get on the front foot with the media. You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
Starmer was interviewed on Good Morning Britain a couple weeks back. Two thirds of the interview was, do you think women have penises? The rest was, why haven't you studied Angela Rayner's tax returns in depth?. Many on here thought he was gotcha'd by this interview.
Genuinely, what do you think he should have done? I would be tempted to say, do you have anything serious to ask me? But Starmer played it safe and engaged, if not particularly well.
Starmer is on the front foot by default so doesn't need to risk going on the assault, he's not 'beleaguered' (yet) Sunak is being buried and just smiling like it's all terribly nice and jolly good fun.
So in SKS case, he should have answered honestly 'I think people who identify as female are female, yes' if that's his view. If he's not prepared to say that then he either doesn't believe it or he's scared it will make him unpopular. I suspect his fear of losing a few votes outweighs any principle he thinks his stance represents, hence being tied in a knot.
Be forthright. As a people we are becoming terrified not just of 'offending' but of being guilty of 'wrongthink'. What you believe is what you believe and stand for and if someone is "offended' then so what? Being in a state of offended is not a serious condition and quickly heals.
Thanks but I think "honestly" in Starmer's case is "those are stupid questions". To your original point.
OK. He could take that approach too, for sure. It's slightly more risky with respect to the issue itself imo, but I'm not going to derail the thread in one of 'those' discussions
With all the reading the runes and analysis of the whys and wherefores over Sunak calling the election now, part of me wonders if it's really simple and was telegraphed last autumn:
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn. 7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023 · 1.8M Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
He'd walk Solihull. If he wants to shape Conservatism he should go for it.
Candidates have to be signed, sealed and delivered by 7/6 so he has a fortnight from yesterday to weigh up his options, but in practice less because he (and Boris?) will want to grab a safe seat.
I thought that even Boris thought that his Parliamentary ship had sailed. I suspect both the Tories and Reform are doing some arm-twisting behind the scenes as far as candidates are concerned.
I think there is a high chance that Reform will not get candidates in every seat, and a small chance that the Tories might find a few missing too.
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
Why don't you call them actresses - is somebody stopping you?
Nope I don’t have a gun to my head or anything, it just seems that female actors and comedians nowadays often prefer not to be referred to with a gendered term. So I try and be polite and respect that - and if that’s woke well then I’m with Kathy Burke.
But how should you refer to a male seamstress? Seammaster? That’s an expensive dive watch worn by insecure people with fragile egos.
With all the reading the runes and analysis of the whys and wherefores over Sunak calling the election now, part of me wonders if it's really simple and was telegraphed last autumn:
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn. 7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023 · 1.8M Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
I concluded much the same. I think he's been waiting for that number. If it had happened in April he'd have gone then.
I saw UKIP has elected a new leader, one Lois Perry earlier this month. No idea which seat she's standing in (if she even stands) yet.
I'm surprised UKIP are still going. What little I learned last night when I was glancing through the parties is that they've fallen totally into infighting and factionalism, along with some accusations of certain party members favouring other party members whilst they were dating them.
They should just pack up and either join Reform or go home.
Seems like it was fake news Rishi was having the day off today...he has gone to spoons like he loves to do for breakfast...shakes head.
Speaking to the veterans - whose group includes ex-servicemen from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines - Mr Sunak revealed that the pub is a favourite place that he 'very occasionally' goes to for breakfast after a park run.
Sunak's approval ratings have ticked up since the campaign started. Still early days but one to watch.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
Its an artefact of the disengaged becoming engaged. A lot of the disinterested and DKs were Con leaning types. Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
The Labour leader has made a habit of hosting campaign visits at lower league football clubs.
He was at Gillingham Football Club in Kent on day one of campaigning earlier this week. Today we’ve been at Stafford Rangers FC, who are in the Northern Premier League, Premier Division.
It’s a very deliberate campaign decision, a senior Labour figure tells me.
There are mundane practical reasons – it’s a ready-made venue with seating for an event. Visually it’s also very clear where you are (usually because there’s a whopping great sign in the background – in this case ‘Stafford Rangers’.) So when local people see the pictures on TV, they know Starmer has been in their patch.
But the party is also trying to promote the image of Sir Keir Starmer as a football-loving, ordinary bloke.
And the reason it’s often lower league clubs? Mainly, the senior Labour source tells me, it’s because the bigger premier league clubs are in cities where Labour are already confident they will win.
Their campaign is focused on smaller towns – parliamentary seats like Stafford that they need to take off the Conservatives in order to win a majority.
Comments
(spoiler: he can't)
(in the mid 90s) over 3 years, although I am cheap. It was useful research though and not in some obscure bit of literature.
Going back to the stupid thresholds - because I'm cheap and live somewhere cheap - never mind the 100k threshold, I cut my hours rather than pay 40% tax. All stupid cut-offs have consequences.
"Mr Levido, there appears to be a gap in your cv around spring 2024"
"prison, I was in prison"
I must admit I hadn’t thought of poor long term economic news being a factor in Sunak’s decision, but on reflection, as you say, he’s an economist and just maybe he can read the runes better than some.
I don’t know how many new MP’s there were in 1945, but I do recall that the 1919 Parliament had “hard-faced men who’d done well out of the war’ and the next couple of Parliaments needed time to settle down.
'Don't worry, it'll be over soon. Starmer seems nice.'
https://x.com/ProfTimBale/status/1794273048734134758
The professional working Tories are the ones who are less visible nowadays but I sense still a decent contingent (I.e the middle classes who would never admit to their friends that they vote Tory but in the privacy of the polling booth feel they have their economic interests more at heart). Stuff like Rwanda puts them off but the gamble is that the messaging around tax keeps them in the Tory column.
Then there are the Brexity right wing types who might be a bit more motivated by things like Rwanda albeit that I don’t think it’s cut through because these folk don’t trust the Tories on immigration anyway.
The balancing act is keeping enough of that coalition together/motivated to go to the polls to manage a heavy but respectable defeat. I think that’s why they will probably go on both (or rather, they will emphasise the perceived danger of Labour in respect of both areas).
Seems to have been the case for the last 16 years.
We have had 10 elections since and including 1983. Only in two of those has the incumbent party lost.
Thank you for your comments and our eldest son is making good progress over his terrible PTSD following the scenes he saw in the Christchurch earthquake disaster in 2011
I do think the PSBR which was lost in the inflation figures was a part of his judgment as it is a shocking figure
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
None of these messes are small fry and it looks like whoever (haha) wins this one is going to have a pile of dung economically to wade through before they can even think about doing the things they really want.
Sunak assesses first days of campaign.
https://vimeo.com/950085130
Edit - I see TUD got there first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine,_Hampshire
We didn't think anybody would notice.
You put them in hi-vis jackets!
You know, basic, confident answers to sniggering behind the hand questions like
'I'm here in x to talk about the fantastic success of y and set out z so the public can make an Informed choice on July 4 in this vitally important election. I think it's insulting to them for you to ask such silly and childish questions, now have you got any grown up questions you'd like to ask?'
Stop being such fucking pussies. That kind of strategy
I am of an age where a Travelodge is very much a last resort.
But, seriously, sometimes you just have to punch an egg thrower.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
https://x.com/natashac/status/1794272899810914575
The idea that people on UC, or £50k, or £100k should face net marginal tax rates of 80-100%+ while beyond that its a peak of 47% marginal tax rate is just completely insane.
We should have a smooth tax system without any cliff edges.
The Tories have had 14 years to fix the system and haven't unfortunately. I don't hold my breath that Labour will either.
@NatashaC
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1794272899810914575
He's too comfortable squeaking in the corner with his cheese.
It's not as easy during the Festival, granted. But look on there right now and you'll see tonnes of options for way less than £200.
Back in my younger days I worked in sales with products that were sometimes vastly inferior and more expensive than the competition. The only weapon in the arsenal is to say your opponent's offering is cheaper because it is poor quality and their service is substandard. You know that is utter rubbish but the mortgage has to be paid and your wife/ girlfriend kept in relative luxury. Rishi has only this option left to him. Sometimes it worked, sometimes you were laughed at. If I was desperate to close the sale would I reluctantly suggest (as Boris Johnson has today alluded) my competitors were friends with Jimmy Savile. It may be morally outrageous but might have been worth a try if the current account was overdrawn.
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
But no, he'll 'give him some space to think' and then if Street announces drown it out by visiting somewhere in Jersey called 'Clusterfuck'
@thhamilton
I wrote a thing about the Tory campaign so far: “sometimes, when you’re on the ropes getting repeatedly punched in the face it’s not a rope-a-dope strategy: it’s just you on the ropes getting repeatedly punched in the face”
https://dividinglines.substack.com/p/start-the-votes
The New Deal will now be known as Labour's Plan To Make Work Pay
Starmer wants to sharpen core message of putting money in people's pockets and reassure business
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1794299971878912269
I've seen time and again people make the fallacy that as Scotland's population is relatively stable it shouldn't need much construction.
That's only the case if the demographics are stable, they're not.
Children live with their parents. Parents of children live with their children. (Great-)Grandparents tend to live on their own.
If the population is stable but the demographics mean we now have fewer children and more elderly, then that means we need more houses.
Even in Scotland though the population is not stable, there is growth, but there is also quite considerable demographic change so there needs to be construction to keep up.
He is in a difficult position - if they had some good popular things to talk about they'd surely already have been talking about them, and anything newly announced will be called desperate and met with a rejoinder of why not do something about it in the last 14 years - but just being more combative may not be the answer.
Speaking to the veterans - whose group includes ex-servicemen from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines - Mr Sunak revealed that the pub is a favourite place that he 'very occasionally' goes to for breakfast after a park run.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13458887/Smiling-Rishi-Sunak-meets-veterans-breakfast-North-Yorkshire-minister-denied-report-PM-taking-day-election-campaign.html
Obviously his handlers don't feel like they can risk him do soap box / Cameron direct type events.
"Now I'm to tell people there’s no problem and Michael shouldn’t be punished? Well, fuck that," says one.
https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1794304359519736172
I spent hours on the phone, yesterday, looking for an SNP politician willing - or even able - to explain why Swinney's decision to back Matheson makes any sense. I was unsuccessful.
https://x.com/IamHappyToast/status/1794294234604015800
I suspect there would be hell to pay if Tory MPs were spreading fake images of Starmer.
Of course, as a sometimes LibDem voter, it wouldn’t matter if my muesli got cold!
BREAKING: More than 10,000 migrants have arrived in the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats in 2024.
This year's landmark was reached after 288 people crossed in five small boats on Friday.
https://x.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1794303394141876662
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
https://x.com/atrightmovies/status/1794294040462282948?s=46
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Just been out to inspect our local Park Run, and since it's all on suitable paths, to trace the route backwards on the e-folder. Lots of good mornings, and no problems or mud.
Lots of mobility aid blocking barriers on all the entries to the Green Flag Country Park, however. All the fishermen with mobility scooters and tents will have come in through the daytime-only motor vehicle entrance, or done some very careful manoeuvring.
'Accessible to all' is supposed to be a core criteria of Green Flag, so self-assessment is a problem and the GF scheme need a plonk with a cluebat.
Street's coming in then
Genuinely, what do you think he should have done? I would be tempted to say, do you have anything serious to ask me? But Starmer played it safe and engaged, if not particularly well.
Sunak is being buried and just smiling like it's all terribly nice and jolly good fun.
So in SKS case, he should have answered honestly 'I think people who identify as female are female, yes' if that's his view. If he's not prepared to say that then he either doesn't believe it or he's scared it will make him unpopular.
I suspect his fear of losing a few votes outweighs any principle he thinks his stance represents, hence being tied in a knot.
Be forthright. As a people we are becoming terrified not just of 'offending' but of being guilty of 'wrongthink'. What you believe is what you believe and stand for and if someone is "offended' then so what? Being in a state of offended is not a serious condition and quickly heals.
Something you weasel against, again today you were bringing up the fallacy by talking just about population growth and omitting demographics.
Scotland's population is aging faster than England's. So no you can not just compare population growth and say that you don't need construction, you do.
The population by 3%.
Households by 6%.
Woops.
Thick as two short planks if it's not sank in yer.
Neither is you completely disregarding everything everyone else says to you time and again then going "Woops". 🤷♂️
I'm going for a 5k so back in 19 minutes.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
https://x.com/cazjwheeler/status/1708189787377525139?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1708189787377525139|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn.
7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023
·
1.8M
Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
But how should you refer to a male seamstress? Seammaster? That’s an expensive dive watch worn by insecure people with fragile egos.
Oh how complicated modern mores are!
I'm surprised UKIP are still going. What little I learned last night when I was glancing through the parties is that they've fallen totally into infighting and factionalism, along with some accusations of certain party members favouring other party members whilst they were dating them.
They should just pack up and either join Reform or go home.
Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
He was at Gillingham Football Club in Kent on day one of campaigning earlier this week. Today we’ve been at Stafford Rangers FC, who are in the Northern Premier League, Premier Division.
It’s a very deliberate campaign decision, a senior Labour figure tells me.
There are mundane practical reasons – it’s a ready-made venue with seating for an event. Visually it’s also very clear where you are (usually because there’s a whopping great sign in the background – in this case ‘Stafford Rangers’.) So when local people see the pictures on TV, they know Starmer has been in their patch.
But the party is also trying to promote the image of Sir Keir Starmer as a football-loving, ordinary bloke.
And the reason it’s often lower league clubs? Mainly, the senior Labour source tells me, it’s because the bigger premier league clubs are in cities where Labour are already confident they will win.
Their campaign is focused on smaller towns – parliamentary seats like Stafford that they need to take off the Conservatives in order to win a majority.