I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
This is the first release of our model estimating 2024 presidential election votes in every state, based upon nearly 100,000 recent interviews of registered voters. We show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 50% to 47% just before their first debate. However, the race will be determined by who wins the most electoral votes, not popular votes, and, as it currently stands, the race is a toss-up.
We have Harris leading in 22 states and Washington D.C. with 256 electoral votes and Trump leading in 25 states with 235 electoral vote.
There are two in there I would be slightly sceptical of.
Firstly, I'm not sure I believe Harris is four points ahead in Nevada. I think that is probably the single most likely state to flip in the US, given its proximity to the border, and the midterm results.
Secondly, while I think the Arizona underlyings are probably right (or even understate Trump slightly), I think he will suffer from two factors. Firstly, the presence of Lake as the Senatorial candidate is not going to encourage moderate Republicans to trek to the polls (which would have almost certainly gifted Trump a couple of extra percent). Secondly, the abortion referendum there - if other states are a guide - is likely to motivate young people and women to go the polls. That's not great news for Trump there either. Without the referendum or Lake, I think Trump would have won Arizona comfortably. As it is, I would make Harris the narrow favourite.
Re: "proximity" of Nevada to Mexican border, it's about same distance from Henderson south of Las Vegas to Mexico, as from London to Durham in England.
On the other hand, name one major settlement between the Mexican border and Law Vegas. It's 200 miles of nothing.
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.
I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
She was brought up in a devout Methodist household, so I suspect that her true inclinations ran that way.
"Alfred was an alderman and a Methodist local preacher.[10] He brought up his daughter as a strict Wesleyan Methodist,[11] attending the Finkin Street Methodist Church,[12] but Margaret was more sceptical; the future scientist told a friend that she could not believe in angels, having calculated that they needed a breastbone 6 feet (1.8 m) long to support wings."
Methodists are against whisky, so that is at least one respect in which she apostasized.
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Also: if they have lived there for decades there's outstanding maintenance which reduces the sale price. Conversely they are too old to supervise building works at the new place and want something in concourse condition. This squeezes the amount actually freed up by the downsizing.
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
Very much in our case
We bought it in 1976 when our children were 10, 5 and 1 and it is their treasured family home to which they bring their children 21, 15, 12, 10 and 2 and it is full of happy memories for the entire family
We will not sell it as it is possible our youngest and his family will move into it when we pass on
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
As a general rule on pensions any adjustment to taxation should be on the amount going in rather than benefits already accrued.
Altering pension benefits is fundamentally destabilising, as the basis of paying into a pension is certainty on what is coming out. If this pot is suddenly taxed then quite reasonably people will not pay into pensions and either save in other ways or simply live in the moment.
Changing pension allowances on additional money is a different situation, as people can adjust their plans accordingly.
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Also: if they have lived there for decades there's outstanding maintenance which reduces the sale price. Conversely they are too old to supervise building works at the new place and want something in concourse condition. This squeezes the amount actually freed up by the downsizing.
We have lived in our house for decades and maintain it to high standards and is already C rated for energy efficiency and that is before we installed a new A rated gas ch boiler in March
And at 80 I am certainly not too old to supervise building works though I have a lifetime of knowledge of building, planning, etc
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
I now expect to be proved very wrong, but if they mess with the 25% tax free there will be huge number of withdrawals before the end of the tax year which will have a massive impact on the markets and pension funds.
I expect the amount you can put away in a pension will be limited to 20% relief, which should have been done years ago. It will not deter people from investing in a pension because it will still be a non brainer.
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Also: if they have lived there for decades there's outstanding maintenance which reduces the sale price. Conversely they are too old to supervise building works at the new place and want something in concourse condition. This squeezes the amount actually freed up by the downsizing.
We have lived in our house for decades and maintain it to high standards and is already C rated for energy efficiency and that is before we installed a new A rated gas ch boiler in March
And at 80 I am certainly not too old to supervise building works though I have a lifetime of knowledge of building, planning, etc
Conversely I am 60 and have had builders in for nearly a year now and am thinking Never again.
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
I now expect to be proved very wrong, but if they mess with the 25% tax free there will be huge number of withdrawals before the end of the tax year which will have a massive impact on the markets and pension funds.
I expect the amount you can put away in a pension will be limited to 20% relief, which should have been done years ago. It will not deter people from investing in a pension because it will still be a non brainer.
I do expect a reduction in the tax free percentage and on pension tax relief I would expect a 25% flat rate which helps 'working people' but saves a lot of money overall
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
My friend will have to get his calculator out to work out what difference it will make longer term, although he'll also have to guess what the ISA limit might be after the budget too.
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Also: if they have lived there for decades there's outstanding maintenance which reduces the sale price. Conversely they are too old to supervise building works at the new place and want something in concourse condition. This squeezes the amount actually freed up by the downsizing.
We have lived in our house for decades and maintain it to high standards and is already C rated for energy efficiency and that is before we installed a new A rated gas ch boiler in March
And at 80 I am certainly not too old to supervise building works though I have a lifetime of knowledge of building, planning, etc
Conversely I am 60 and have had builders in for nearly a year now and am thinking Never again.
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Also: if they have lived there for decades there's outstanding maintenance which reduces the sale price. Conversely they are too old to supervise building works at the new place and want something in concourse condition. This squeezes the amount actually freed up by the downsizing.
We have lived in our house for decades and maintain it to high standards and is already C rated for energy efficiency and that is before we installed a new A rated gas ch boiler in March
And at 80 I am certainly not too old to supervise building works though I have a lifetime of knowledge of building, planning, etc
Conversely I am 60 and have had builders in for nearly a year now and am thinking Never again.
Tradesmen are a nightmare. I was supposed to be going to stay with some woman tonight but she said she had the painters in so no point. They really do disrupt lives.
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
Did you expect a 19% approval rating within just a few weeks
Starmer needs to lift the nation and he is simply not doing that
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
There is a balance to be struck. People know the Tories were crap. They are now looking to someone to tell them about the good times ahead. I think people will give Labour a chance at fixing things, but Labour are doing themselves no favours by failing to really sell their positive vision of the future.
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
There is a balance to be struck. People know the Tories were crap. They are now looking to someone to tell them about the good times ahead. I think people will give Labour a chance at fixing things, but Labour are doing themselves no favours by failing to really sell their positive vision of the future.
That can wait for three years time. "We have sorted out the Tories' mess, now we can do nice popular things".
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
I now expect to be proved very wrong, but if they mess with the 25% tax free there will be huge number of withdrawals before the end of the tax year which will have a massive impact on the markets and pension funds.
I expect the amount you can put away in a pension will be limited to 20% relief, which should have been done years ago. It will not deter people from investing in a pension because it will still be a non brainer.
I do expect a reduction in the tax free percentage and on pension tax relief I would expect a 25% flat rate which helps 'working people' but saves a lot of money overall
If they reduce the tax free element you can take from your pension it will crash the markets and put pension funds in jeopardy because of the mass removal of funds before April. Everyone over 55 would remove a quarter of their pension fund.
I agree on reducing the tax relief on contributions and might also limit the amount that tax relief applies to so that it only benefits those on low and middle incomes.
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
Yes, I think she was genuinely quite devout.
Mrs Thatcher's father was a Methodist lay preacher. She can therefore be counted as a de facto son or daughter of the Manse, along with Gordon Brown and Theresa May more recently.
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
I now expect to be proved very wrong, but if they mess with the 25% tax free there will be huge number of withdrawals before the end of the tax year which will have a massive impact on the markets and pension funds.
I expect the amount you can put away in a pension will be limited to 20% relief, which should have been done years ago. It will not deter people from investing in a pension because it will still be a non brainer.
I do expect a reduction in the tax free percentage and on pension tax relief I would expect a 25% flat rate which helps 'working people' but saves a lot of money overall
If they reduce the tax free element you can take from your pension it will crash the markets and put pension funds in jeopardy because of the mass removal of funds before April. Everyone over 55 would remove a quarter of their pension fund.
I agree on reducing the tax relief on contributions and might also limit the amount that tax relief applies to so that it only benefits those on low and middle incomes.
Would it crash the markets?
Does it have to come out as cash or could you move it from a 'pension' fund to a very similar 'investment' fund without much ado?
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
There is a balance to be struck. People know the Tories were crap. They are now looking to someone to tell them about the good times ahead. I think people will give Labour a chance at fixing things, but Labour are doing themselves no favours by failing to really sell their positive vision of the future.
That can wait for three years time. "We have sorted out the Tories' mess, now we can do nice popular things".
That assumes that people will give them a fair hearing when they run that argument. If they carry on with the current messaging, I think they may well be scuttling their own boat.
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
Did you expect a 19% approval rating within just a few weeks
Starmer needs to lift the nation and he is simply not doing that
I'm not sure I'm shocked. Starmer's honeymoon bounce was only to 30% approval, and it was always going to fall, because that's what always happens.
Ultimately, we demand too much from our governments and have done for decades. High spending please, but not too many of those horrible taxes.
The Trusstasrophe was the acute version of that, but all PMs done it. We've ducked the question at least since Thatcher spent windfalls as revenue. It's not tax rises or spending cuts, both are going to be needed.
The booze-up that voters have voted for has finally run out of booze. The hangover is going to be nasty, but (as someone said) There Is No Alternative. The only optimism is that it won't be forever.
And that a Conservative government- a Conservative government cut taxes on the basis of a pile of borrowing and some phoney spending plans was a utterly grotesque spectacle.
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Also: if they have lived there for decades there's outstanding maintenance which reduces the sale price. Conversely they are too old to supervise building works at the new place and want something in concourse condition. This squeezes the amount actually freed up by the downsizing.
We have lived in our house for decades and maintain it to high standards and is already C rated for energy efficiency and that is before we installed a new A rated gas ch boiler in March
And at 80 I am certainly not too old to supervise building works though I have a lifetime of knowledge of building, planning, etc
Conversely I am 60 and have had builders in for nearly a year now and am thinking Never again.
Tradesmen are a nightmare. I was supposed to be going to stay with some woman tonight but she said she had the painters in so no point. They really do disrupt lives.
There's a short story in the style of James Joyce/Somerset Maugham hiding in that post. And there is an underlying mixture of quotidien and bleakness which is quite entrancing. Dare I wish you good luck?
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
From the first half (or so) I watched last night, I'm slightly sceptical of the pundits' consensus that this was a walkover for Kamala. It seemed to me there were enough reasons for partisans on either side not to switch. Kamala avoided policy like a woman entrusted with Keir Starmer's Ming vase. Trump, well 'nuff said.
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
Did you expect a 19% approval rating within just a few weeks
Starmer needs to lift the nation and he is simply not doing that
While it would be good to know exactly what the 81% think Starmer and Labour should have achieved by now so as to be approve worthy, Labour has been sub-optimal at the very obvious strategy of converting the message of "Under the Tories your glass was more than half empty and getting emptier" to "Under Labour your glass is nearly half full and getting fuller because this (fill in details) is how we get to the promised land".
I certainly think most of Stride's support will go to Tugendhat and he will probably get through. Cleverly then needs to take enough of the remainder to overhaul Badenoch and knock her out.
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Also: if they have lived there for decades there's outstanding maintenance which reduces the sale price. Conversely they are too old to supervise building works at the new place and want something in concourse condition. This squeezes the amount actually freed up by the downsizing.
Another reason...moving house is known to be one of the most stressful experiences in life.....pensioners dont want the stress
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Also: if they have lived there for decades there's outstanding maintenance which reduces the sale price. Conversely they are too old to supervise building works at the new place and want something in concourse condition. This squeezes the amount actually freed up by the downsizing.
We have lived in our house for decades and maintain it to high standards and is already C rated for energy efficiency and that is before we installed a new A rated gas ch boiler in March
And at 80 I am certainly not too old to supervise building works though I have a lifetime of knowledge of building, planning, etc
Conversely I am 60 and have had builders in for nearly a year now and am thinking Never again.
Tradesmen are a nightmare. I was supposed to be going to stay with some woman tonight but she said she had the painters in so no point. They really do disrupt lives.
There's a short story in the style of James Joyce/Somerset Maugham hiding in that post. And there is an underlying mixture of quotidien and bleakness which is quite entrancing. Dare I wish you good luck?
Ha, no need for good luck, it’s not really the reason I’m not seeing her tonight but couldn’t resist making a smutty post.
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
Yes, I think she was genuinely quite devout.
If I said “Wesleyan Methodist of the most bigoted and persecuting type” would anyone get the reference?
I did not. So I googled it. And now I do. Thank you. You are the very model of a modern PB poster.
I have seen that Labour have again apparently refused to rule out scrapping the single person discount for Council Tax. This is going to make the WFA furore sound rather quaint, if they do this on top.
I'm starting to think that Rishi Sunak was maybe not the most politically inept party leader after all. God knows what Labour are up to, but I sure as hell can't make head nor tail of it.
As my friend @taylorswift13 so eloquently stated, now is the time to research and choose the candidate that speaks to you and your beliefs. Only 54 days left until the election. Make sure you are registered to vote! Your vote in this election may be one of the most important things you ever do. https://vote.gov
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
OGH and Mrs OGH wanted to downsize and move into a nice apartment overlooking the river in Bedford. They would have been swapping a 4 bedroom house for a 2 bedroom flat, and in theory it would have freed up around £200k as well.
Unfortunately, given stamp duty and other costs, they would have ended up out of pocket if they moved.
Result: instead of freeing up a nice 4 bedroom house with garden for a family, they are staying in a place that is too big for them.
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
From the first half (or so) I watched last night, I'm slightly sceptical of the pundits' consensus that this was a walkover for Kamala. It seemed to me there were enough reasons for partisans on either side not to switch. Kamala avoided policy like a woman entrusted with Keir Starmer's Ming vase. Trump, well 'nuff said.
Yes. It`s quite bizarre that if she does an average job, she is praised to the high heavens.
It`s almost as if the left-wing media were worried that she was going to fall apart last night and were overjoyed when that didn`t happen.
(I thought the moderators were ok too, not partisan like some right-wing media felt)
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
I think he'll win the EC (the ever impressive @williamglenn has bombarded me with Trump- positive opinion polls so I'm persuaded) but what we saw last night was a shocker. Are you sure you watched the right debate? Dog eating Haitian immigrants anyone?
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
From the first half (or so) I watched last night, I'm slightly sceptical of the pundits' consensus that this was a walkover for Kamala. It seemed to me there were enough reasons for partisans on either side not to switch. Kamala avoided policy like a woman entrusted with Keir Starmer's Ming vase. Trump, well 'nuff said.
Yes. It`s quite bizarre that if she does an average job, she is praised to the high heavens.
It`s almost as if the left-wing media were worried that she was going to fall apart last night and were overjoyed when that didn`t happen.
(I thought the moderators were ok too, not partisan like some right-wing media felt)
It’s not that odd. People who dont want Trump to win are relieved/excited when Harris has a decent debate.
I agree that she wasn’t amazing, but she was solid and decent and she got a couple of hits in. Against someone like Trump and with the risks she faced, that was probably the best she was going to achieve, so I think the Democrats will be very pleased with it.
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
I think he'll win the EC (the ever impressive @williamglenn has bombarded me with Trump- positive opinion polls so I'm persuaded) but what we saw last night was a shocker. Are you sure you watched the right debate? Dog eating Haitian immigrants anyone?
What he did well was bring every question to the subject of immigration, as it is one of the big Democrat weak spots.
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
There is a balance to be struck. People know the Tories were crap. They are now looking to someone to tell them about the good times ahead. I think people will give Labour a chance at fixing things, but Labour are doing themselves no favours by failing to really sell their positive vision of the future.
Yes. What I was expecting to hear was "We are in a very difficult position but this is our plan ..... and in X years we should be in a better position."
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
He said he wanted a deal with Zelensky and Putin, though yes Harris made clear she wanted Zelensky to win and free Ukraine
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
I now expect to be proved very wrong, but if they mess with the 25% tax free there will be huge number of withdrawals before the end of the tax year which will have a massive impact on the markets and pension funds.
I expect the amount you can put away in a pension will be limited to 20% relief, which should have been done years ago. It will not deter people from investing in a pension because it will still be a non brainer.
I do expect a reduction in the tax free percentage and on pension tax relief I would expect a 25% flat rate which helps 'working people' but saves a lot of money overall
If they reduce the tax free element you can take from your pension it will crash the markets and put pension funds in jeopardy because of the mass removal of funds before April. Everyone over 55 would remove a quarter of their pension fund.
I agree on reducing the tax relief on contributions and might also limit the amount that tax relief applies to so that it only benefits those on low and middle incomes.
Would it crash the markets?
Does it have to come out as cash or could you move it from a 'pension' fund to a very similar 'investment' fund without much ado?
Surely people wouldn't just burn it.
You take it as cash. Never seen an option to do otherwise. You might do something sensible with it, but the impact on the markets and pension funds would be huge. No doubt I will be proved wrong.
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
I think he'll win the EC (the ever impressive @williamglenn has bombarded me with Trump- positive opinion polls so I'm persuaded) but what we saw last night was a shocker. Are you sure you watched the right debate? Dog eating Haitian immigrants anyone?
What he did well was bring every question to the subject of immigration, as it is one of the big Democrat weak spots.
Like I said he didn't! Tulsi had schooled him on the VP's weaknesses and the moderator teed one up for him with the first question on the economy. She didn't answer, but neither the moderator nor Trump followed that up. Harris needled Trump and he kept biting. Taken as individual sentences he appeared cogent but when he put them altogether he just talked rubbish.
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
I think he'll win the EC (the ever impressive @williamglenn has bombarded me with Trump- positive opinion polls so I'm persuaded) but what we saw last night was a shocker. Are you sure you watched the right debate? Dog eating Haitian immigrants anyone?
What he did well was bring every question to the subject of immigration, as it is one of the big Democrat weak spots.
Immigration - and particularly illegal immigration - is a big issue in the Sunbelt, but the further you are from the Mexican border, the less important it is.
That's why I assumed Trump would walk Arizona and Nevada. And while I think he's pretty certain for the latter, the former is looking much closer.
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
I now expect to be proved very wrong, but if they mess with the 25% tax free there will be huge number of withdrawals before the end of the tax year which will have a massive impact on the markets and pension funds.
I expect the amount you can put away in a pension will be limited to 20% relief, which should have been done years ago. It will not deter people from investing in a pension because it will still be a non brainer.
I do expect a reduction in the tax free percentage and on pension tax relief I would expect a 25% flat rate which helps 'working people' but saves a lot of money overall
If they reduce the tax free element you can take from your pension it will crash the markets and put pension funds in jeopardy because of the mass removal of funds before April. Everyone over 55 would remove a quarter of their pension fund.
I agree on reducing the tax relief on contributions and might also limit the amount that tax relief applies to so that it only benefits those on low and middle incomes.
Would it crash the markets?
Does it have to come out as cash or could you move it from a 'pension' fund to a very similar 'investment' fund without much ado?
Surely people wouldn't just burn it.
UK insurance and pension funds combined own about 4% of the London equity market. Dunno about gilts but the gilts market is biiiig, and dunno about SIPPs though in my case it's SP500 which will mainly be reeling at my withdrawal. And of course most of it belongs to people too young to access it. I don't think we are talking market crashing sums.
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
OGH and Mrs OGH wanted to downsize and move into a nice apartment overlooking the river in Bedford. They would have been swapping a 4 bedroom house for a 2 bedroom flat, and in theory it would have freed up around £200k as well.
Unfortunately, given stamp duty and other costs, they would have ended up out of pocket if they moved.
Result: instead of freeing up a nice 4 bedroom house with garden for a family, they are staying in a place that is too big for them.
Yet another reason not to downsize, however I didn't list it because it depends on where you are selling and buying...sell a 4 bedroom house in london and move for example to a 2 bed house in wick....probably quids in
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
Attlee was an atheist though he liked some Christian principles, Churchill was agnostic.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
Did you expect a 19% approval rating within just a few weeks
Starmer needs to lift the nation and he is simply not doing that
Where's Peter Wright when you need him? After the coup a Boris Johnson titular premiership, a World beating NHS and free money for all just in time for Christmas. Why can't this lot do that?
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
He said he wanted a deal with Zelensky and Putin, though yes Harris made clear she wanted Zelensky to win and free Ukraine
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
Attlee was an atheist though he liked some Christian principles, Churchill was agnostic.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
From the first half (or so) I watched last night, I'm slightly sceptical of the pundits' consensus that this was a walkover for Kamala. It seemed to me there were enough reasons for partisans on either side not to switch. Kamala avoided policy like a woman entrusted with Keir Starmer's Ming vase. Trump, well 'nuff said.
Yes. It`s quite bizarre that if she does an average job, she is praised to the high heavens.
It`s almost as if the left-wing media were worried that she was going to fall apart last night and were overjoyed when that didn`t happen.
(I thought the moderators were ok too, not partisan like some right-wing media felt)
It’s not that odd. People who dont want Trump to win are relieved/excited when Harris has a decent debate.
I agree that she wasn’t amazing, but she was solid and decent and she got a couple of hits in. Against someone like Trump and with the risks she faced, that was probably the best she was going to achieve, so I think the Democrats will be very pleased with it.
I actually thought he was ok in Trump terms but she was excellent.
Every age group, both genders, middle class and working class voters and every region of the UK now has a net negative approval of Starmer's government on that new Yougov.
Only 2016 Remain voters and I think Labour voters (the figures look wrong there) still net approve
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
He said he wanted a deal with Zelensky and Putin, though yes Harris made clear she wanted Zelensky to win and free Ukraine
I want a deal. It looks like this
Not going to happen while Putin has nukes, focus should be on freeing Ukraine not invading Russia
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
He said he wanted a deal with Zelensky and Putin, though yes Harris made clear she wanted Zelensky to win and free Ukraine
I want a deal. It looks like this
You've missed out Poland, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Bulgaria , Romania and the former Yugoslavia!
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
Attlee was an atheist though he liked some Christian principles, Churchill was agnostic.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
I suspect Jenrick's god might be red with horns.
Jenrick is married to a Jewish lady and they bring up their daughters in the Jewish faith
Every age group, both genders, middle class and working class voters and every region of the UK now has a net negative approval of Starmer's government on that new Yougov.
Only Remainers and I think Labour voters (the figures look wrong there) still approve
Starmer will address this by having a row with the EU where he will reiterate his red line on free movement.
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
Attlee was an atheist though he liked some Christian principles, Churchill was agnostic.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
I suspect Jenrick's god might be red with horns.
Jenrick is married to a Jewish lady and they bring up their daughters in the Jewish faith
So does Starmer and you have already stated he is a Godless Heathen.
By the way so is Bibi, so I think I have shot your fox!
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
There is a balance to be struck. People know the Tories were crap. They are now looking to someone to tell them about the good times ahead. I think people will give Labour a chance at fixing things, but Labour are doing themselves no favours by failing to really sell their positive vision of the future.
Yes. What I was expecting to hear was "We are in a very difficult position but this is our plan ..... and in X years we should be in a better position."
I'd like to think that's part of the plan, and there is evidence for Starmer getting to the right message in time. However, I've got a couple of worry factors that mean it might take a long time.
First is that political messages take ages to cut through. Remember how Starmer's "dad was a toolmaker" thing was mocked for repetitiveness, but still came as news to most voters?
Second is that I don't think most of us (me included probably) have truly clocked how bad the fiscal situation is. The glass is rather less than half-full, but some people don't want to be told that because they think they have been filling the glass all their working lives. (They have, but not really by enough.)
Optimism is always a good thing, but it has to be rooted in realism. And the UK still seems to be some way off that.
In the meantime, unpopularity now is unpleasant for a government, but the best thing to do is shrug it off and keep on doing what they know is right.
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
Attlee was an atheist though he liked some Christian principles, Churchill was agnostic.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
I suspect Jenrick's god might be red with horns.
Jenrick is married to a Jewish lady and they bring up their daughters in the Jewish faith
So does Starmer and you have already stated he is a Godless Heathen.
No his children are not being brought up to believe in God and in the Jewish faith and attending Synagogue though they recognise it as part of their family history and celebrate Jewish cultural festivals
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
Attlee was an atheist though he liked some Christian principles, Churchill was agnostic.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
I suspect Jenrick's god might be red with horns.
Jenrick is married to a Jewish lady and they bring up their daughters in the Jewish faith
So does Starmer and you have already stated he is a Godless Heathen.
Point of order heathens aren't necessarily godless they just dont believe in your god
"a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do"
On downsizing, I think timing is also very important. You’ve got to do it when you have the confidence to put yourself through the moving process. My parents who have just managed it were ever so slightly on the other side of that line, and they really did struggle with everything and needed a lot of support. 5 years ago, I don’t think it would have phased them at all.
I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb
However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary
Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion
Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?
I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.
Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
So - asking for a friend you understand - if you were just about to reach the age at which you can take out 25%, should you do it before the budget?
I would give it very serious thought but take the advice of a professional
I now expect to be proved very wrong, but if they mess with the 25% tax free there will be huge number of withdrawals before the end of the tax year which will have a massive impact on the markets and pension funds.
I expect the amount you can put away in a pension will be limited to 20% relief, which should have been done years ago. It will not deter people from investing in a pension because it will still be a non brainer.
I do expect a reduction in the tax free percentage and on pension tax relief I would expect a 25% flat rate which helps 'working people' but saves a lot of money overall
If they reduce the tax free element you can take from your pension it will crash the markets and put pension funds in jeopardy because of the mass removal of funds before April. Everyone over 55 would remove a quarter of their pension fund.
I agree on reducing the tax relief on contributions and might also limit the amount that tax relief applies to so that it only benefits those on low and middle incomes.
Would it crash the markets?
Does it have to come out as cash or could you move it from a 'pension' fund to a very similar 'investment' fund without much ado?
Surely people wouldn't just burn it.
You take it as cash. Never seen an option to do otherwise. You might do something sensible with it, but the impact on the markets and pension funds would be huge. No doubt I will be proved wrong.
A couple with a joint million pound pot, which is comfortable but not large will result in £250,000 being withdrawn. 4000 couples and you are up to a billion. 40,000 couples and you are at 10 Billion.
I have seen that Labour have again apparently refused to rule out scrapping the single person discount for Council Tax. This is going to make the WFA furore sound rather quaint, if they do this on top.
I'm starting to think that Rishi Sunak was maybe not the most politically inept party leader after all. God knows what Labour are up to, but I sure as hell can't make head nor tail of it.
Is it perhaps we are just seeing the usual party games where the Opposition claims the government will do all sorts of bad things in the budget, knowing they cannot be ruled in or out.
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
Attlee was an atheist though he liked some Christian principles, Churchill was agnostic.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
I suspect Jenrick's god might be red with horns.
Jenrick is married to a Jewish lady and they bring up their daughters in the Jewish faith
So does Starmer and you have already stated he is a Godless Heathen.
Point of order heathens aren't necessarily godless they just dont believe in your god
"a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do"
derogatory
Apologies. I did not intend to diminish your Pagan Gods, they are as valid as the ones you have noted.
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
He said he wanted a deal with Zelensky and Putin, though yes Harris made clear she wanted Zelensky to win and free Ukraine
I want a deal. It looks like this
You've missed out Poland, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Bulgaria , Romania and the former Yugoslavia!
{Pounding on big desk in big office in big chancellory building}
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
Attlee was an atheist though he liked some Christian principles, Churchill was agnostic.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
I suspect Jenrick's god might be red with horns.
Jenrick is married to a Jewish lady and they bring up their daughters in the Jewish faith
So does Starmer and you have already stated he is a Godless Heathen.
Point of order heathens aren't necessarily godless they just dont believe in your god
"a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do"
derogatory
Apologies. I did not intend to diminish your Pagan Gods, they are as valid as the ones you have noted.
Disparage them all you like, I objected to being called godless You can even make cartoons if you like
Just watched the debate. Trump appeared quite able and sharp in his faculties. He slightly rambled but made some good points too. What he didn`t do was land a knockout punch.
He said he wanted a deal with Zelensky and Putin, though yes Harris made clear she wanted Zelensky to win and free Ukraine
This is the first release of our model estimating 2024 presidential election votes in every state, based upon nearly 100,000 recent interviews of registered voters. We show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 50% to 47% just before their first debate. However, the race will be determined by who wins the most electoral votes, not popular votes, and, as it currently stands, the race is a toss-up.
We have Harris leading in 22 states and Washington D.C. with 256 electoral votes and Trump leading in 25 states with 235 electoral vote.
There are two in there I would be slightly sceptical of.
Firstly, I'm not sure I believe Harris is four points ahead in Nevada. I think that is probably the single most likely state to flip in the US, given its proximity to the border, and the midterm results.
Secondly, while I think the Arizona underlyings are probably right (or even understate Trump slightly), I think he will suffer from two factors. Firstly, the presence of Lake as the Senatorial candidate is not going to encourage moderate Republicans to trek to the polls (which would have almost certainly gifted Trump a couple of extra percent). Secondly, the abortion referendum there - if other states are a guide - is likely to motivate young people and women to go the polls. That's not great news for Trump there either. Without the referendum or Lake, I think Trump would have won Arizona comfortably. As it is, I would make Harris the narrow favourite.
Re: "proximity" of Nevada to Mexican border, it's about same distance from Henderson south of Las Vegas to Mexico, as from London to Durham in England.
On the other hand, name one major settlement between the Mexican border and Law Vegas. It's 200 miles of nothing.
We can take it, that you've never taken the 3:10 to Yuma?
AND also that you do NOT count "Arizona Highways" among your current - or future - clients!
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
Yes, I think she was genuinely quite devout.
If I said “Wesleyan Methodist of the most bigoted and persecuting type” would anyone get the reference?
I did not. So I googled it. And now I do. Thank you. You are the very model of a modern PB poster.
Glad you got it, though the very model is from an earlier work.
I did a bit of Gilbert and Sullivan at university; my last role was Grand Inquisitor in “Gondoliers”.
This is the first release of our model estimating 2024 presidential election votes in every state, based upon nearly 100,000 recent interviews of registered voters. We show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 50% to 47% just before their first debate. However, the race will be determined by who wins the most electoral votes, not popular votes, and, as it currently stands, the race is a toss-up.
We have Harris leading in 22 states and Washington D.C. with 256 electoral votes and Trump leading in 25 states with 235 electoral vote.
There are two in there I would be slightly sceptical of.
Firstly, I'm not sure I believe Harris is four points ahead in Nevada. I think that is probably the single most likely state to flip in the US, given its proximity to the border, and the midterm results.
Secondly, while I think the Arizona underlyings are probably right (or even understate Trump slightly), I think he will suffer from two factors. Firstly, the presence of Lake as the Senatorial candidate is not going to encourage moderate Republicans to trek to the polls (which would have almost certainly gifted Trump a couple of extra percent). Secondly, the abortion referendum there - if other states are a guide - is likely to motivate young people and women to go the polls. That's not great news for Trump there either. Without the referendum or Lake, I think Trump would have won Arizona comfortably. As it is, I would make Harris the narrow favourite.
Re: "proximity" of Nevada to Mexican border, it's about same distance from Henderson south of Las Vegas to Mexico, as from London to Durham in England.
On the other hand, name one major settlement between the Mexican border and Law Vegas. It's 200 miles of nothing.
We can take it, that you've never taken the 3:10 to Yuma?
AND also that you do NOT count "Arizona Highways" among your current - or future - clients!
That's not a potential client, it's a 70s folk rock classic
And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
Main reasons they don't downsize
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories There support network and friends are colocated They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
OGH and Mrs OGH wanted to downsize and move into a nice apartment overlooking the river in Bedford. They would have been swapping a 4 bedroom house for a 2 bedroom flat, and in theory it would have freed up around £200k as well.
Unfortunately, given stamp duty and other costs, they would have ended up out of pocket if they moved.
Result: instead of freeing up a nice 4 bedroom house with garden for a family, they are staying in a place that is too big for them.
Absolutely agreed 100%.
Stamp Duty should be abolished and replaced with a Land Value Tax paid annually.
Downsizing shouldn't cost you a penny, besides agents fees etc
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
There is a balance to be struck. People know the Tories were crap. They are now looking to someone to tell them about the good times ahead. I think people will give Labour a chance at fixing things, but Labour are doing themselves no favours by failing to really sell their positive vision of the future.
Yes. What I was expecting to hear was "We are in a very difficult position but this is our plan ..... and in X years we should be in a better position."
I'd like to think that's part of the plan, and there is evidence for Starmer getting to the right message in time. However, I've got a couple of worry factors that mean it might take a long time.
First is that political messages take ages to cut through. Remember how Starmer's "dad was a toolmaker" thing was mocked for repetitiveness, but still came as news to most voters?
Second is that I don't think most of us (me included probably) have truly clocked how bad the fiscal situation is. The glass is rather less than half-full, but some people don't want to be told that because they think they have been filling the glass all their working lives. (They have, but not really by enough.)
Optimism is always a good thing, but it has to be rooted in realism. And the UK still seems to be some way off that.
In the meantime, unpopularity now is unpleasant for a government, but the best thing to do is shrug it off and keep on doing what they know is right.
It's what Maggie would have done.
I'm very much rooted in realism and cannot believe anyone's optimism if they don't show understanding of the reality. But even if we're in for 2, 3 or even more decades of hardship, still a real leader would be telling us, "This is our plan and we can get through the hardship eventually."
Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz · 7m Trump seems to be unwilling to do another debate, citing an unnamed poll that showed him winning by a 92-8 margin last night.
At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.
Coincidence?
You decide ...
I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.
There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.
They need to smile a bit more.
Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible
The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom
22 billion shortfall... and that's why we've taken the tough decision to give big pay rises to our client vote.
Um, those pay rises and the fact Rishi would have to release prisoners early are the reasons why Rishi called an early election.
Two of them, anyway.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
There is a balance to be struck. People know the Tories were crap. They are now looking to someone to tell them about the good times ahead. I think people will give Labour a chance at fixing things, but Labour are doing themselves no favours by failing to really sell their positive vision of the future.
Yes. What I was expecting to hear was "We are in a very difficult position but this is our plan ..... and in X years we should be in a better position."
I'd like to think that's part of the plan, and there is evidence for Starmer getting to the right message in time. However, I've got a couple of worry factors that mean it might take a long time.
First is that political messages take ages to cut through. Remember how Starmer's "dad was a toolmaker" thing was mocked for repetitiveness, but still came as news to most voters?
Second is that I don't think most of us (me included probably) have truly clocked how bad the fiscal situation is. The glass is rather less than half-full, but some people don't want to be told that because they think they have been filling the glass all their working lives. (They have, but not really by enough.)
Optimism is always a good thing, but it has to be rooted in realism. And the UK still seems to be some way off that.
In the meantime, unpopularity now is unpleasant for a government, but the best thing to do is shrug it off and keep on doing what they know is right.
It's what Maggie would have done.
Thatcher had a vision and an eventual end goal to sell though. Has Starmer articulated what he wants Britain to look like once he’s finished his process of change?
Will Tuesday’s US presidential debate be remembered as a turning point in the campaign? Why was Donald Trump so off-message? Did Kamala Harris miss the chance to destroy the MAGA movement once and for all?
Join Rory and Alastair for a bonus episode of The Rest Is Politics where they answer all these questions and more.
I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?
I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
Probably going back a long way.
There's a biography of Canning that mentions how he attended church but didn't actually believe.
Personally I prefer my leaders to be 'soft CofE' in the great British moderate tradition. I mistrust overt Atheists just as much as I mistrust Zealous Evangelicals.
This message is not approved by @williamglenn so please ignore.
Don't attack posters who share information that's not good for Harris please.
We need accurate information to bet on this election.
Best give me another flag then.
I am quite content for William to post Trump- positive polls, however, and granted they are few and far between now, he has been very reluctant to show a balanced approach and post any Harris leads.
This is the first release of our model estimating 2024 presidential election votes in every state, based upon nearly 100,000 recent interviews of registered voters. We show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 50% to 47% just before their first debate. However, the race will be determined by who wins the most electoral votes, not popular votes, and, as it currently stands, the race is a toss-up.
We have Harris leading in 22 states and Washington D.C. with 256 electoral votes and Trump leading in 25 states with 235 electoral vote.
I would warn everyone not to give too much weight to UK polling companies in the US election. Their record is not good over there. Ipsos is the possible exception. They can give trends but hoping they will predict the result is optimistic to say the least
Comments
Its the house they have lived in for decades, it holds memories
There support network and friends are colocated
They want room for family to visit (now I am not a pensioner but I deliberately rented a house with a spare bedroom rather than a one bedroom flat for the following reason....cost of my son and his wife coming to stay for 2 weeks currently....cost of travel, if however I had no room for them to sleep and they had to get a hotel travel + £1400+ inconvenience to them = instead of visiting two or three times a year they might visit once every two years
You also notice many who bang on about oldies downsizing are horrified if you suggest maybe people on benefits shouldn't live in high rent area's costing a fortune in council tax...because "they will lose their support network"
Methodists are against whisky, so that is at least one respect in which she apostasized.
We bought it in 1976 when our children were 10, 5 and 1 and it is their treasured family home to which they bring their children 21, 15, 12, 10 and 2 and it is full of happy memories for the entire family
We will not sell it as it is possible our youngest and his family will move into it when we pass on
Altering pension benefits is fundamentally destabilising, as the basis of paying into a pension is certainty on what is coming out. If this pot is suddenly taxed then quite reasonably people will not pay into pensions and either save in other ways or simply live in the moment.
Changing pension allowances on additional money is a different situation, as people can adjust their plans accordingly.
And at 80 I am certainly not too old to supervise building works though I have a lifetime of knowledge of building, planning, etc
I expect the amount you can put away in a pension will be limited to 20% relief, which should have been done years ago. It will not deter people from investing in a pension because it will still be a non brainer.
As for the Starmer is a doomster thing... Hangovers aren't meant to be fun. Denial of that is a large part of why the country is in the state it is.
I'm sure that there were people who voted Starmer for the good times to return quickly. They weren't paying attention.
Starmer needs to lift the nation and he is simply not doing that
I agree on reducing the tax relief on contributions and might also limit the amount that tax relief applies to so that it only benefits those on low and middle incomes.
Trump refuses to say whether he wants Ukraine to win war against Russia
Does it have to come out as cash or could you move it from a 'pension' fund to a very similar 'investment' fund without much ado?
Surely people wouldn't just burn it.
Ultimately, we demand too much from our governments and have done for decades. High spending please, but not too many of those horrible taxes.
The Trusstasrophe was the acute version of that, but all PMs done it. We've ducked the question at least since Thatcher spent windfalls as revenue. It's not tax rises or spending cuts, both are going to be needed.
The booze-up that voters have voted for has finally run out of booze. The hangover is going to be nasty, but (as someone said) There Is No Alternative. The only optimism is that it won't be forever.
And that a Conservative government- a Conservative government cut taxes on the basis of a pile of borrowing and some phoney spending plans was a utterly grotesque spectacle.
Jenrick should get through regardless
@StevieNicks
As my friend @taylorswift13 so eloquently stated, now is the time to research and choose the candidate that speaks to you and your beliefs. Only 54 days left until the election. Make sure you are registered to vote! Your vote in this election may be one of the most important things you ever do. https://vote.gov
Love,
Stevie Nicks
Childless Dog Lady
Unfortunately, given stamp duty and other costs, they would have ended up out of pocket if they moved.
Result: instead of freeing up a nice 4 bedroom house with garden for a family, they are staying in a place that is too big for them.
It`s almost as if the left-wing media were worried that she was going to fall apart last night and were overjoyed when that didn`t happen.
(I thought the moderators were ok too, not partisan like some right-wing media felt)
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
18m
NEW Wisconsin poll (by Marquette)
Harris 52%
Trump 48%
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump
I agree that she wasn’t amazing, but she was solid and decent and she got a couple of hits in. Against someone like Trump and with the risks she faced, that was probably the best she was going to achieve, so I think the Democrats will be very pleased with it.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KtHn59wqdBc
Note that this has 5m views overnight, an awful lot of young Americans will be watching takes like this rather than the actual debate.
That's why I assumed Trump would walk Arizona and Nevada. And while I think he's pretty certain for the latter, the former is looking much closer.
I first read the headline as "Is Reeves planning window tax"
And thought that's more like it. Now we are getting somewhere.
Kinnock was an atheist and Major was not very religious albeit token C of E. Sunak believed in multiple Gods as a Hindu but was not an atheist unlike Starmer.
I probably won't be voting for Cleverly once I get my membership ballot paper if he gets to the final 2 with that news though thanks
Only 2016 Remain voters and I think Labour voters (the figures look wrong there) still net approve
By the way so is Bibi, so I think I have shot your fox!
First is that political messages take ages to cut through. Remember how Starmer's "dad was a toolmaker" thing was mocked for repetitiveness, but still came as news to most voters?
Second is that I don't think most of us (me included probably) have truly clocked how bad the fiscal situation is. The glass is rather less than half-full, but some people don't want to be told that because they think they have been filling the glass all their working lives. (They have, but not really by enough.)
Optimism is always a good thing, but it has to be rooted in realism. And the UK still seems to be some way off that.
In the meantime, unpopularity now is unpleasant for a government, but the best thing to do is shrug it off and keep on doing what they know is right.
It's what Maggie would have done.
https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/i-have-relatives-in-israel-who-are-affected-by-the-war-says-starmer-ia4mcg4n
"a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do"
derogatory
This! is! absolutely! my! last! territorial! demand!
You can even make cartoons if you like
We need accurate information to bet on this election.
Jon Stewart talks to a liberal base. No Trump or Trump minded supporters watch his show.
Gives certain Tories a semi
But they'll be less tumescent
If the numbers aren't present
To get her into the final two
Trigger warning for Mercator projection please!
AND also that you do NOT count "Arizona Highways" among your current - or future - clients!
I did a bit of Gilbert and Sullivan at university; my last role was Grand Inquisitor in “Gondoliers”.
Stamp Duty should be abolished and replaced with a Land Value Tax paid annually.
Downsizing shouldn't cost you a penny, besides agents fees etc
Kemi takes the lead,
New winds stir the party's sails,
Change in steady hands.
Frank Luntz
@FrankLuntz
·
7m
Trump seems to be unwilling to do another debate, citing an unnamed poll that showed him winning by a 92-8 margin last night.
There's no realistic chance she'll get more votes than Jenrick, nor any realistic chance that she'll get more transfers than Tugendhat/Cleverly.
I can't see a viable path for Kemi to the members vote. Rule number one of politics - or political gambling - know how to count.
Will Tuesday’s US presidential debate be remembered as a turning point in the campaign? Why was Donald Trump so off-message? Did Kamala Harris miss the chance to destroy the MAGA movement once and for all?
Join Rory and Alastair for a bonus episode of The Rest Is Politics where they answer all these questions and more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1gntLUsong
There's a biography of Canning that mentions how he attended church but didn't actually believe.
Personally I prefer my leaders to be 'soft CofE' in the great British moderate tradition. I mistrust overt Atheists just as much as I mistrust Zealous Evangelicals.
I am quite content for William to post Trump- positive polls, however, and granted they are few and far between now, he has been very reluctant to show a balanced approach and post any Harris leads.