Howdy, Stranger!

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

Will Starmer go full Truss and sack the Chancellor this year? – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,378
    Cookie said:

    And yet, consider the average age of this board. If we're saying things are crap - and our demographic is fairly cushioned - imagine the tone on here were there some young people.
    Hahahaha.

    Sorry. Just remembering I'm not in the fairly cushioned category.

    But I do have a plan. With my income as is, I can cunningly avoid any tax increases. And it's 100% legal.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113
    boulay said:

    You are accusing people you have never met and know nothing about of being selfish. I’m not surprised. These people are not selfish, they are all people who donate to arts, charities, help out. They worked hard to build companies but reached a point where they felt that they weren’t appreciated and would be the scapegoats and cash cows for a society that has been told that they are a problem.

    They have children, will have grandchildren and don’t want to be constantly abused on one hand then expected to shell out more and more by the abusers.

    Much easier however to throw mud at them than actually think about how the situation has come to be.

    Envy is probably the worst British vice and the country always suffers for it.
    I'm not envious. I have a good life, and am lucky. And they are appreciated. As I hope Mrs J is for her hard work.

    But yes, it is selfish. If this country is in a mess, then it needs more money (i.e. tax) to get it out of that mess.

    And if they are as rich as you say, the situation may well have come about because the decisions made by people like them, and not the poorer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,902

    I can tell you the least effective process:
    1) Spend money hold a consultation/review of trams being added to Leeds' transport infrastructure.
    2) Cancel the proposal.
    3) Repeat step 1 again and again.

    There's been millions spent over the years and it's just waste.
    If we built as cheaply as do some of the European cities, Leeds might already have a tram system for the money already spent.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113

    That’s the most extreme ultranationalist comment I’ve ever seen on here.
    Is it really?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,459
    edited January 9

    Did anyone expect Labour to be THIS bad? Anyone?

    Yes.

    For two reasons.

    Firstly I've lived through Labour governments before, secondly I have some knowledge of economics, and thirdly I have some knowledge of government and acquaintance with a few of the personalities.

    From the first I got knew that Labour would shovel money and favours to their favoured interest groups while screwing over the enterprising and productive who make this country just about work (obviously having criticised the Conservatives for doing the same to a much lesser extent), from the second I knew that their policies were the exact opposite of what the country needs, and from the third I knew just how pisspoor they are at their jobs. I didn't agree with much of what Jeremy Hunt did, but compared to Reeves he is an intellectual colossus.

    Though I won't claim to have anticipated that they'd become this unpopular this quickly - I thought dislike of the Conservatives would act as more of a prop to the government's favourability ratings than it has, and I also thought that voters would be more convinced by Starmer's lying gaslighting about being pro-growth etc. than they have been. Also I didn't realise that Starmer and Reeves would go around spreading gloom about the country's situation in such an utterly self-defeating and counter-productive way.

    For the first time in my life I have taken to advising the few young people who have asked me to find another country for the next few years at least.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113
    Leon said:

    Sorry. What? People who decide to live somewhere else with lower taxes are “utterly selfish”? Perhaps they feel countries with lower taxes will also be more welcoming to free enterprise and innovation? And - more importantly - it’s their money and they can do what they like

    You often make painfully moronic remarks but this one is pretty up there
    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Plastic patriots help ruin the country, bitch about it, then leave for others to clear up the mess.

    I agree they can do what they like. But that does not mean they can not, and should not, be criticised.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,127

    This seems to be a 28-year old or early thirtysomehing Toryboy chap who writes for the Telrgraph.

    I doubt he even has any memory of
    London before about about 2005.
    But I’m sure he’s heard tales at the feet of eg Douglas Murray.
    ‘Yer could walk miles without encountering a kebab shop and it weren’t illegal to call yerself English!’
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,295
    edited January 9
    Nigelb said:

    Well it is literally a selfish, as opposed to altruistic decision.
    The "utterly" is a bit OTT, certainly.
    How many people voluntarily pay lots more taxes if they can easily move and pay a lot less in taxes?! It's a nonsensical view of human nature

    Ensuring one is prosperous is not selfishness, its enlightened self interest, looking after your self your family your kids your future. If you make money you will also, probably be less demanding of the state, you are also likely to employ people, start more companies, spend cash in restaurants, etc etc. All the positive things @boulay said. Also if these people move it's a good lesson to countries that stupidly impose high taxes so as to punish the enterprising - the lesson being: don't do it. Sadly it seems the UK is gonna have to learn this all over again as we did in 1960s and 70s, until we eventualy went bust

    And I speak as someone who has voluntairly paid a LOT of tax to HMRC and the UK
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    kjh said:

    Not in the same time period it wasn't.
    Yes it was. Over the lifespan of a typical parliament the 2015-2020 one (as projected) had a referendum and two extra general elections to validate it.

    Next.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113

    a

    It's interesting that some people like the half the idea of Global Britain - easy to come here and work. But the corollary to that is that people find it easier to leave.

    Take one bloke in my team. Indian, first generation immigrant. Got wife and baby, no school as yet. Been in the country about 6 years. Why shouldn't he move to Berlin, or wherever?

    He looks at what he is paying in taxes and what he gets for it. And is not impressed. Transactional, maybe. But why should he think differently?
    I agree. Mrs J is in that situation. She could be earning more in Turkey - or the USA - than here. But we don't move. Why? Partly the reasons she moved to this country in the first place, and partly because the UK is still a good place to live on a moderate income.

    Others disagree. But the country needs more money to fix problems it has. Austerity - which I was in favour of - has been tried, and probably went too far. So how else do we get the money? There is no magic money tree.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,877
    Sandpit said:

    California building code is pretty strict, because it’s an earthquake zone, but there’s still too many houses of wooden construction. The brick or concrete houses tend to be the larger ones, but they all have big gardens filled with trees so the fire is coming through anyway.

    The correct thing to do is a lot of preventative maintenance, such as clearing scrub off the floor in the forests, clearing areas for fire breaks in the forests, controlled burns before fire season, keeping street trees smaller and not overhanging property, making sure the reservoir for the fire hydrants is full etc etc.

    It doesn’t look like this has happened, to the point where insurance companies have given up on insuring fire risk in many places because they’re increasingly uncontrollable. There’s going to be quite the political fallout if it turns out a bunch of Hollywood types have had uninsured mansions burn down. It won’t be forgotten like the fires in Maui were last year.
    Yes, that's true re: earthquake codes. Wooden framed buildings fare much better than brick in an earthquake, so building them isn't totally insane.

    Given the windspeed, I wonder what width you'd need for a firebreak?

    When we get fires on the moors the bracken can roll up and blow half a mile away whilst still alight. I don't imagine their scrub is any different.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113

    Because we're run by fucking muppets who have starry-eyed idealistic views about the purety of "international law" and put it on a pedestal, and want to virtue-signal they've done real Decolonisation to their base.
    I agree. It's barmy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    biggles said:

    Our national budget is basically healthcare, welfare, police, schools, transport and defence. The rest is noise. And, frankly, it’s telly just health and welfare. Hard to find deep and meaningful cuts.
    So, we have to cut health and welfare.

    Or, in reality, further qualify what the NHS will pay for and what it will not.
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,198

    I'm wondering if I've chosen the right time to retire (early)...
    Same here, but I am committed now. Cannot go back. I think if I said "please have me back" they would but I don't want to do that.

    I am glad I have a good buffer of cash as well as other investments and a DB which I am now looking to access early.

    They are interviewing replacements for me, including some today.
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,198
    Leon said:

    Sorry. What? People who decide to live somewhere else with lower taxes are “utterly selfish”? Perhaps they feel countries with lower taxes will also be more welcoming to free enterprise and innovation? And - more importantly - it’s their money and they can do what they like

    You often make painfully moronic remarks but this one is pretty up there
    If only all millionaires were not selfish wretches who want to keep their own money and were more like this lot.

    https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/the-problem
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    biggles said:

    But the reality is that healthcare demand is fixed, criminal justice has to be fixed, and we need to strengthen our defences.

    It’s an impossible puzzle to fix.
    It can be with leadership, strong and loud objections and some political cost.

    One think I'd go after is PIPs: Joe Lifestough shouldn't be paid £1.5k a month by the State to rent her own 1-bed flat in Brighton because she finds working at the civil service mentally straining. I'd also time-limit incapacity benefits, just as employers do, unless they are permanently disabled.

    She can live with friends, family or others in a flatshare. Sure, she will still have issues and won't be as "independent" but we can't afford to keep everyone in clover as if they were all working full-time - a permanent furlough.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,392
    edited January 9

    Yes it was. Over the lifespan of a typical parliament the 2015-2020 one (as projected) had a referendum and two extra general elections to validate it.

    Next.
    No it isn't. You are calling for a people's vote to get rid of Labour literally months after the election. That isn't a life span of a typical parliament. I'm no fan of labour, but that is not how a democracy works.

    You can't keep asking for a GE when you don't like what the Govt does, particularly if it has a large majority.
  • We've covered the misleading stats, about London now being minority White British several times on PB before.

    There are a substantial number of white and British people on London of Continental European origin not putting White British on the census, because they think that means only anglo-saxon/celtic. It shouldn't mean that, as British is a civic not ethnic category, and that's English or Celtic. The government needs to change the categories.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,171
    Cookie said:

    And yet, consider the average age of this board. If we're saying things are crap - and our demographic is fairly cushioned - imagine the tone on here were there some young people.
    Cost of housing, innit?

    If you have a paid-off mortgage, life is probably still pretty peachy. If you are paying 2025-level market rents, you are stuffed no matter how much you earn.

    Until that gets fixed, not much else matters. Increased prosperity just feeds into higher house prices so why bother?

    This government, imperfect as it is, does seem to get that better than the alternatives. Whether it gets it well enough remains to be seen.

    (And how much of the moaning here is people doing badly themselves, as opposed to people hearing that it's going badly and resenting being out of power themselves?)
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,297
    Barnesian said:

    We don't need to balance the budget. That's the naive Thatcher housewife fallacy.

    The debt can continue to grow as long as it roughly keeps pace with economic growth.
    It can, but given that about £100bn of government spending is already debt interest, it's not really in our economic interest to do so.

    If we didn't have the existing debt, and therefore weren't paying the interest payments on it, the governments books would about balance now, instead of being miles out of wack.

    Outside of wartime and national emergencies, wise governments should not borrow.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 891

    Something dramatically new about that.

    Up until the end of the Second World War, anybody who fell outside of the cultural norm — white, British and Christian — was a novelty and would have lived in the full knowledge that they did not represent the municipal mainstream. The experience of London before the Second World War resembled modern monocultural Tokyo far more than it resembled modern multicultural New York...

    For the first time in history, London’s permanent population is culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse, sharing little in common with the country it governs. This change was recent, rapid and remarkable. It is strange that we acknowledge it so rarely, and it would be ludicrous to assume that it has had no bearing on life in the city. Most Londoners know, regardless of whether they admit it, that crime has risen steeply. Certain areas of the city are effectively off-limits after dark...

    The sticking-plaster solution is to engineer a new founding myth through brute-force messaging: London is, always has been and always will be multicultural. Londoners have always prided themselves on their pluralism and tolerance. This was inevitable. It cannot — must not — be questioned.
    They never name these no-go areas of course. It should be noted that whilst the author is a Cambridge-educated law graduate ;), they are also a Director of an Adam Smith institute thinktank so have a strong political agenda.
    As someone who'd lived in London for some time, I've suffered from crime (bike theft and burglary) but less frequently than when I was a student in Newcastle and the only times I've been threatened with violence is as a cyclist by white British male drivers (note: people who have stopped and exited their vehicle to threaten violence, not just poor or deliberately dangerous driving.).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Jonathan said:

    What Leon is obviously hoping for is an economic event sufficient to force the U.K. back into the EEA.

    Getting rid of the Brexit bureaucracy has got to be worth a few percent on gdp.

    Except it wouldn't. It would probably only be worth 0.2-0.4% of GDP pa, and you can look at pre-Brexit figures if you don't believe me.

    On the other side of the ledger you'd have a debit for where we can't take advantage of new technologies, like AI, and flexibility in trade and foreign policy.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,877
    edited January 9
    Taz said:

    Same here, but I am committed now. Cannot go back. I think if I said "please have me back" they would but I don't want to do that.

    I am glad I have a good buffer of cash as well as other investments and a DB which I am now looking to access early.

    They are interviewing replacements for me, including some today.
    Yes, pretty much identical situation here although no DB. I'm 99.9% sure it will be fine, but it is nonetheless quite a big step.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    glw said:

    Musk proved himself to be an utter berk even before he started going political, remember when he got the hump with divers rejecting his submarine for that cave rescue in Thailand?

    Even if Musk never said a single political thing he's made a ridiculous number of stupid comments and made claims he hasn't kept.
    Yeah sure, and he was criticised for that, including by me, but he wasn't called a loser and a fascist and the biggest threat to the world and all that sort of hyperbolic nonsense we now see on here on a daily basis.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,145

    a

    Electric buses in dedicated bus lanes can deliver much of the benefits of trams.

    But "Trams are more efficient" - I hear the cry.

    If trams cost a zillion a mile, require years of planning, then sorry. You can't have lots of trams. Choices.

    Much like the explosion (ha) of battery storage for power. Why? Because *stopping* people parking some shipping containers on some land is very difficult. So it may not be the best storage system. But it's the one that will happen.
    Indeed. The thinking on public transport solutions is incredibly sticky and beliefs last for decades longer than the evidence justifies but are simply repeated as rote taken on faith.

    Metros are more expensive than trams, inevitably, but can move many times more people so the cost per passenger mile should be lower, if planned properly. Otherwise, yes, buses.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,297

    They have squandered the golden legacy?
    More that having inherited a modest hole, they've jumped in and started shoveling with enthusiasm "next stop Australia".
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090

    I think that was actually under Sunak
    They priced in the assumption, correctly, of an incoming Labour administration once it was clear Sunak couldn't recover it.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,006
    Leon said:

    How many people voluntarily pay lots more taxes if they can easily move and pay a lot less in taxes?! It's a nonsensical view of human nature

    Ensuring one is prosperous is not selfishness, its enlightened self interest, looking after your self your family your kids your future. If you make money you will also, probably be less demanding of the state, you are also likely to employ people, start more companies, spend cash in restaurants, etc etc. All the positive things @boulay said. Also if these people move it's a good lesson to countries that stupidly impose high taxes so as to punish the enterprising - the lesson being: don't do it. Sadly it seems the UK is gonna have to learn this all over again as we did in 1960s and 70s, until we eventualy went bust

    And I speak as someone who has voluntairly paid a LOT of tax to HMRC and the UK

    Most wealthy people stay put. Those that leave to pay less tax elsewhere clearly value their wealth above other things. We all "voluntarily" pay our taxes because the alternative is pretty expensive!

  • theProle said:

    It can, but given that about £100bn of government spending is already debt interest, it's not really in our economic interest to do so.

    If we didn't have the existing debt, and therefore weren't paying the interest payments on it, the governments books would about balance now, instead of being miles out of wack.

    Outside of wartime and national emergencies, wise governments should not borrow.
    Outside of wartime and national emergencies, wise governments do not borrow.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,195
    edited January 9

    a

    Electric buses in dedicated bus lanes can deliver much of the benefits of trams.

    But "Trams are more efficient" - I hear the cry.

    If trams cost a zillion a mile, require years of planning, then sorry. You can't have lots of trams. Choices.

    Much like the explosion (ha) of battery storage for power. Why? Because *stopping* people parking some shipping containers on some land is very difficult. So it may not be the best storage system. But it's the one that will happen.
    I'm not convinced by "Trams take forever to build" type comment.

    Nottingham has two tramlines - a total of 20 miles and 50 station, done one line, then the other added. In each case starting work on site to the tram starting operating took 4 years.

    Getting everything in place, around permissions and funding, took about twice as long, and more for the first one.

    Trams are more efficient. As a like for like, put a double decker bus on a tramway with tram wheels and it uses about 85-90% less energy at 30mph. Plus they are more efficient in staff per passenger, and go at higher speed.

    A zillion per mile is much to do with planning process, like everything else, and how the numbers are added up - I blame the Treasury. The way we cost our roads are also completely screwed-up, though I think that may be being changed around now; I think it was on Louise Haigh's agenda.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,934

    They priced in the assumption, correctly, of an incoming Labour administration once it was clear Sunak couldn't recover it.
    Well that's bollocks. With a year and a half to go before the election, what about the swingback you were all expecting at that moment.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,902

    Because we're run by fucking muppets who have starry-eyed idealistic views about the purety of "international law" and put it on a pedestal, and want to virtue-signal they've done real Decolonisation to their base.
    This is not an ideological point, though - it's simply a massive and unnecessary waste of money.

    A competent opposition would be raising this weekly at PMQs - without going down the rabbithole of "decolonialisation", which is a distraction of no interest to the majority of the electorate. Likely including the majority of Labour's "base", as opposed to their activists.

    That £9bn, and the £15bn you'd free up by cutting three quarters of the CCS commitment (leaving the balance to fund genuine research), would replace a large slug of the headroom Reeves just lost.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Leon said:

    Lots of talk on TwiX now about the millionaires and non Doms fleeing the UK. At a time of great impoverishment the Labour government has contrived to frighten away the most important part of our tax base, and told them btw private schools will be slowly abolished via taxes

    It’s all adding up. All these allegedly small things are adding up to a looming and desperate collision with reality. Even as we allow in millions of migrants who will be a net drain on the treasury, house thousands of asylum seekers in the savoy at billions a year, and pay Tanzania forty trillion quid to take control of Cornwall

    It’s coming. A crash

    Brace

    To which the answer seems to be a mix of "so your patriotism only runs skin-deep?" or "well, fuck off then".

    The consistent belief is that businesses and professionals are only there to be milked to death and should bloody well accept it.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,145
    By the way, mentioning Truss, she has gone completely full Trump with her cease-and-desist letter the Starmer about 'crashing the economy'.

    Leave aside the issue about free speech, and it being necessary to a functioning democracy; leave aside the hypocrisy of her fellow travellers doing far worse *to* Starmer over the child rape gangs. Unlike Trump, she's not in a position to do any censorship, either soft or hard so it's just moronic politics. Raising the issue again just reminds people that she did spike interest rates and nearly brought down a load of pension funds - ironically, just at the time that Labour should be facing heat on the issue.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,295

    London is also a far less violent city than it used to be. The stats are there and they are indisputable. The murder rate has halved in the last 20 years. It feels far safer walking the streets now than it did when I was growing up there in the late 1970s and early 1980s. There are fewer fights in pub, in the streets, at football matches. IRA bombs are a thing of the past. And so on.

    Yes I remember people simply walking into supermarkets and stealing what they wanted with impunity, in the 90s. And all those machete fights. And the thing. And the endless phone thefts of the noughties

    Fact is you can switch it multiple ways, by some stats London is safer, in others- knife crime is an example - it really isn't

    What I CAN say for sure is that London used to "feel" a lot safer than most big developed cities around the world. That is no longer the case. eg Phone theft is almost unheard of in East Asia, likewise mugging. I am right now in the most vivid raucous nightlifey area of Bangkok. It feels safer than Soho because it is. I can leave my phone on a table and it won't get nicked
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090

    It is a shame they're going. But I also fear there's very little we can do to help people who are so utterly selfish.
    Or perhaps you/we are?

    I'd certainly think so if someone demanded all my money whilst I took all the risk and did all the work.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    O/T but this will interest a lot of us - the National Library of Scotland's latest maps newsletter.

    https://maps.nls.uk/cairt/cairt46.pdf

    In particular, they've uploaded the OS Original Series 1" to the mile maps for E&W:

    https://maps.nls.uk/additions/
    https://maps.nls.uk/os/one-inch-old-series/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090

    That sounds suspiciously like “lived experience”
    Which is the same as experience.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Dopermean said:

    They never name these no-go areas of course. It should be noted that whilst the author is a Cambridge-educated law graduate ;), they are also a Director of an Adam Smith institute thinktank so have a strong political agenda.
    As someone who'd lived in London for some time, I've suffered from crime (bike theft and burglary) but less frequently than when I was a student in Newcastle and the only times I've been threatened with violence is as a cyclist by white British male drivers (note: people who have stopped and exited their vehicle to threaten violence, not just poor or deliberately dangerous driving.).
    I wonder if the issue in London is that the type of crime is different to how it was in the past, and today’s crime is more visible. Previously crime was mostly contained in certain areas avoided by commuters, tourists, and wealthy residents, think gangland crime on housing estates, whereas now crime is shoplifting, phone theft, bike theft etc which is much more noticable.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,693
    theProle said:

    It can, but given that about £100bn of government spending is already debt interest, it's not really in our economic interest to do so.

    If we didn't have the existing debt, and therefore weren't paying the interest payments on it, the governments books would about balance now, instead of being miles out of wack.

    Outside of wartime and national emergencies, wise governments should not borrow.
    The US government has repeatedly shown that running huge deficits is possible and can lead to greater growth so long as the markets support it. Their approach post the financial crisis turned out to be much more successful than Britain’s attempts at austerity.

    That said, they have a reserve currency and massive oil and gas reserves which we don’t.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113

    Yeah sure, and he was criticised for that, including by me, but he wasn't called a loser and a fascist and the biggest threat to the world and all that sort of hyperbolic nonsense we now see on here on a daily basis.
    I've not called him a loser or a fascist (I believe the only person I've called that is Putin), but I do think Musk is a threat. His recent outpourings back my view up.

    I've just listened to the latest "The rest is history", which is about the Munich agreement, and I found the parallels both shocking and worrying.

    In a world where we need more Churchills, we've got Musk as a Henry Ford-like character and a US president appeasing. It's easy to imagine Trump coming back from Moscow and waving a worthless piece of paper in his hand.

    Now, the parallels are limited; But like Hitler, Putin has made his world view very clear, and Musk and many in this incoming administration seem to not care.

    That is the quickest way to war. And Musk's words are helping damage alliances that have lasted many decades.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,195
    edited January 9
    theProle said:

    More that having inherited a modest hole, they've jumped in and started shoveling with enthusiasm "next stop Australia".
    It's hardly a modest hole.

    There are very significant amounts of investment missed over the previous 13-14 years that have to be made good. You don't for example starve local authorities of resources (real terms reduction of 25-30% since 2010 iirc) without having to spend the extra money later to make good the year of neglect.

    See also defence?

    And then there is all the rest ...
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,051

    By the way, mentioning Truss, she has gone completely full Trump with her cease-and-desist letter the Starmer about 'crashing the economy'.

    Leave aside the issue about free speech, and it being necessary to a functioning democracy; leave aside the hypocrisy of her fellow travellers doing far worse *to* Starmer over the child rape gangs. Unlike Trump, she's not in a position to do any censorship, either soft or hard so it's just moronic politics. Raising the issue again just reminds people that she did spike interest rates and nearly brought down a load of pension funds - ironically, just at the time that Labour should be facing heat on the issue.

    I think Starmer and co complaining about unfair attacks need to be a little bit careful in case people pick up what Marina Hyde just wrote in her latest Guardian column:

    “I find it difficult to forget now, and wrote about it at the time, but less than two years ago Keir Starmer approved and stood by an attack ad, disseminated on all the social media platforms, which used a picture of Rishi Sunak, next to the words “Do you think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison? Rishi Sunak doesn’t.” Sunak’s famous signature was added for good measure. Joining in the race to the bottom benefits no one, as the prime minister is now finding out. The sense that people like him have played politics rather than done politics is well entrenched.”
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,198
    edited January 9

    Yes, pretty much identical situation here although no DB. I'm 99.9% sure it will be fine, but it is nonetheless quite a big step.
    It is, and it is hard to finally make the decision too. I watched loads of Youtube videos about it and ran my numbers so many time. I am not minted but it kept telling me I have enough to live the current lifestyle I live. I applied for voluntary severance this year, was rejected as I was "needed" something I would have been flattered by 10 years ago. Now IDGAF. But you have to decide and bite the bullet and not just keep talking about it, as I was doing.

    What I did do once I was rejected the first time was to start saving every spare penny I could to give me a buffer to allow me to go without eating into my SIPP's, DC's or ISA's and I did pretty well at that. It is enough to pay my part of the bills for 15 months and also go out and about.

    My only concern is the DB pension I have and the impact of the Reeves budget on it. This is why I am looking to take it 3 years early from Mid March. Or to see what I would get with abatements if I did.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090

    Cutting spending is also bad for growth.
    Depends what you cut spending on - not all of it has a multipler effect.

    Cutting welfare to force people into the jobs market would work well, for example.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,127

    Yeah sure, and he was criticised for that, including by me, but he wasn't called a loser and a fascist and the biggest threat to the world and all that sort of hyperbolic nonsense we now see on here on a daily basis.
    You don’t think the ‘high status male’ guff and supporting AfD has a whiff of the master race about it?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Because we're run by fucking muppets who have starry-eyed idealistic views about the purety of "international law" and put it on a pedestal, and want to virtue-signal they've done real Decolonisation to their base.
    Jim Henson, Frank Oz, Kermit, and Miss Piggy, all think that comment is disgustingly offensive and threatens them with violence.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,295

    Most wealthy people stay put. Those that leave to pay less tax elsewhere clearly value their wealth above other things. We all "voluntarily" pay our taxes because the alternative is pretty expensive!

    What I mean is I haven't even taken "legal" measures to minimise my taxes. eg many years ago - when it was advantageous - my accountant said Why not become a Limited Company (the famous loophole)

    I couldn't be arsed

    I don't mind paying taxes to the UK state, if I feel they are being sensibly spent, on defending the nation, helping the indigent, nurturing the sick

    I do get quie fucked off when I think those taxes are now going to pay for "asylum seekers" completely taking the piss as they cross from France to go live in a hotel on my shilling, or when we are paying Mauritius sixty billion quid to take valuable British foreign posessions because it makes Starmer "feel good"

    There comes a point when even a fair minded tax payer says Fuck this

    God knows what young people think. Or rather, I do know how they think and they increasingly believe they get a very raw deal and they are swinging hard right, or they will do so, as elsewhere

    Right, to the gym! Then gin
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,195

    By the way, mentioning Truss, she has gone completely full Trump with her cease-and-desist letter the Starmer about 'crashing the economy'.

    Leave aside the issue about free speech, and it being necessary to a functioning democracy; leave aside the hypocrisy of her fellow travellers doing far worse *to* Starmer over the child rape gangs. Unlike Trump, she's not in a position to do any censorship, either soft or hard so it's just moronic politics. Raising the issue again just reminds people that she did spike interest rates and nearly brought down a load of pension funds - ironically, just at the time that Labour should be facing heat on the issue.

    Is there a market on whether Kemi will comment ? :smile:
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,914
    edited January 9
    Darren Jones repeatedly confirms at the dispatch box there will be no further borrowing or tax rises

    Just like Labour before the election, ruling out increases in taxes and borrowing, he has now confirmd, though he won't admit it, austerity is coming back in a big way
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,934
    boulay said:

    I think Starmer and co complaining about unfair attacks need to be a little bit careful in case people pick up what Marina Hyde just wrote in her latest Guardian column:

    “I find it difficult to forget now, and wrote about it at the time, but less than two years ago Keir Starmer approved and stood by an attack ad, disseminated on all the social media platforms, which used a picture of Rishi Sunak, next to the words “Do you think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison? Rishi Sunak doesn’t.” Sunak’s famous signature was added for good measure. Joining in the race to the bottom benefits no one, as the prime minister is now finding out. The sense that people like him have played politics rather than done politics is well entrenched.”
    It is hard to argue with Marina Hyde from my side of the fence, and that was indeed a particularly despicable lie.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,660
    Spanish client and UK customer. Having to do some last minute paperwork for new logistics company. Terms are DAP so need customer info as the legal importer.
    Customer: we’re not the importer, we’re on DAP terms
    Me: yeah that’s what DAP means
    Customer: we don’t share that information as we’re not the importer
    Client: why are these people not understanding how your customs work?

    Yep. None of this was a problem until last February when BTOM finally collapsed into operation
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,693
    Sandpit said:

    I wonder if the issue in London is that the type of crime is different to how it was in the past, and today’s crime is more visible. Previously crime was mostly contained in certain areas avoided by commuters, tourists, and wealthy residents, think gangland crime on housing estates, whereas now crime is shoplifting, phone theft, bike theft etc which is much more noticable.
    I feel pretty safe almost everywhere, in the UK or abroad. It’s probably a dangerous psychological feature - a naïveté about other people and their intentions. Even after being a victim of crime - I’ve been burgled twice in the last 3 decades and had my car nicked twice - my natural reflex is to trust strangers. But I do think it’s preferable to the opposite mentality of being suspicious of everyone. I’ve at least started to get a bit more watchful on cyber crime.

    My memory of the 80s and 90s was a lot more burglary and definitely more of a geographical edge to personal crime like mugging - there were no go areas.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090

    To be fair, trams are just expensive and inflexible buses, that disrupt the city for many years while the streets are dug up to put the rails in. A metro system is the way to go, particularly for the centre - it can run above ground elsewhere.

    Getting it built would require changes to processes though. The majority of the cost is in regulation.
    Metros are even more expensive.

    Trams can run on lower energy, due to reduced coefficient of friction, and be electrified and pull longer/heavier loads; they are also more reliable than buses.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,902
    MattW said:

    I'm not convinced by "Trams take forever to build" type comment.

    Nottingham has two tramlines - a total of 20 miles and 50 station, done one line, then the other added. In each case starting work on site to the tram starting operating took 4 years.

    Getting everything in place, around permissions and funding, took about twice as long, and more for the first one.

    Trams are more efficient. As a like for like, put a double decker bus on a tramway with tram wheels and it uses about 85-90% less energy at 30mph. Plus they are more efficient in staff per passenger, and go at higher speed.

    A zillion per mile is much to do with planning process, like everything else, and how the numbers are added up - I blame the Treasury. The way we cost our roads are also completely screwed-up, though I think that may be being changed around now; I think it was on Louise Haigh's agenda.
    There are plenty of European case studies to show how quickly the planning can be done, too.
    Here it's an extended, and expensive game of ping pong between national and local government.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003
    Foxy said:

    I don't see particular value with this bet.

    Reeves is as inept at communications as Starmer, but the fundamental problem remains. The national finances have been running on empty for years. It's either tax rises or massive austerity.

    It shows how useless Badenoch is that she didn't go with this as PMQs, rather than her self defeating bandwagon six questions.

    The thing that is most likely to save Labour's bacon at the next GE is how useless the alternatives are. Rupert Lowe's comments in Parliament yesterday were even more disgraceful.

    They need to cut spending , benefits , MP's freebies, subsidised everything etc. They should be able to save 10% at the drop of a hat and no-one would even notice. Cut giving money away to grifting foreign countries , for them to buy guns etc and supposedly cut fossil fuels. We are a joke.
    Ban agency nurses and doctors for example, when they had no work they would have to either emigrate or go back to NHS. Fortune saved either way that the clowns could use to train lots more staff.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,342

    We've covered the misleading stats, about London now being minority White British several times on PB before.

    There are a substantial number of white and British people on London of Continental European origin not putting White British on the census, because they think that means only anglo-saxon/celtic. It shouldn't mean that, as British is a civic not ethnic category, and that's English or Celtic. The government needs to change the categories.

    Being white, let alone White British, has always been a moveable feast, anyway.

    The issue that matters, as always, is integration, and whether people from dysfunctional societies wish to recreate them over here.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113
    MattW said:

    I'm not convinced by "Trams take forever to build" type comment.

    Nottingham has two tramlines - a total of 20 miles and 50 station, done one line, then the other added. In each case starting work on site to the tram starting operating took 4 years.

    Getting everything in place, around permissions and funding, took about twice as long, and more for the first one.

    Trams are more efficient. As a like for like, put a double decker bus on a tramway with tram wheels and it uses about 85-90% less energy at 30mph. Plus they are more efficient in staff per passenger, and go at higher speed.

    A zillion per mile is much to do with planning process, like everything else, and how the numbers are added up - I blame the Treasury. The way we cost our roads are also completely screwed-up, though I think that may be being changed around now; I think it was on Louise Haigh's agenda.
    " put a double decker bus on a tramway with tram wheels "

    I'd just like to point out that the Misguided Bus here in Cambridge has been an absolute disaster. It was late, massively over budget, and the legal repercussions are still, I believe, ongoing over a decade later. Naturally enough, they want to build more of them, including to my neck of the woods.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003
    stodge said:

    Evening all from New Zealand :)

    It’s hardly sunshine and roses over here with the country in recession and unemployment rising. The National-led coalition was elected in October 2023 and has its own Rachel Reeves in the form of Nicola Willis.

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who makes Starmer look charismatic, has offered the tired old schtick of tax cuts for the wealthy and big public spending cuts including getting rid of civil servants - not on the 50-90% levels much beloved of @MaxPB and @Leon but still considerable.

    As per most “centre right” Governments, however, Luxon is bogged down by ephemeral issues such as the Treaty Principles Bill which is an attempt by the junior partner in the Government, ACT, to redefine the Waitangi Treaty of 1840 by which the indigenous Māori accepted the sovereignty of Queen Victoria in exchange for guarantees. It’s as big and contentious an issue here as EU membership was in the UK and as divisive.

    As @DavidL rightly says, the party is over. The fundamental question facing stagnating economies is how can growth be restarted and prosperity return? With the uncertainties of the Ukraine conflict and the return of Donald Trump, it’s understandable the mood music isn’t good. No one on any part of the political spectrum has so far come back with anything remotely plausible or coherent. The Trump team may think tariffs are the answer - perhaps in the short term for some parts of America but the rest of the world may not agree.

    The notion there is a pot of gold at the end of the spending cut rainbow has always been one for the fantasists. Indeed, at a time of ageing populations and calls for increases in health and defense spending, the only option to this observer is to raise taxes substantially - personal rates to 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate but restore the link between thresholds and inflation (perhaps a little above inflation). These rates would still be well below tax rates in the 70s but would enable some order to be restored to the public finances.

    Other taxes would also have to rise - the meal has been enjoyed, the bill has been presented and we all have to pay for what we’ve “enjoyed”.

    Mp's , Toffs and their chums will not pay for it , you can be sure on that. They will just double their expenses and take bigger pay rises. The great unwashed will need to pay for it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,342

    By the way, mentioning Truss, she has gone completely full Trump with her cease-and-desist letter the Starmer about 'crashing the economy'.

    Leave aside the issue about free speech, and it being necessary to a functioning democracy; leave aside the hypocrisy of her fellow travellers doing far worse *to* Starmer over the child rape gangs. Unlike Trump, she's not in a position to do any censorship, either soft or hard so it's just moronic politics. Raising the issue again just reminds people that she did spike interest rates and nearly brought down a load of pension funds - ironically, just at the time that Labour should be facing heat on the issue.

    Truss is a fool of the highest order. The voters of Norfolk SW did the Conservatives a huge favour on July 4th.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,394

    Voodoo economics.
    Did you hear about the psephologist from Warsaw wot moved to Haiti?

    He became a Voodoo Pole!

    (I thank you)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,006

    By the way, mentioning Truss, she has gone completely full Trump with her cease-and-desist letter the Starmer about 'crashing the economy'.

    Leave aside the issue about free speech, and it being necessary to a functioning democracy; leave aside the hypocrisy of her fellow travellers doing far worse *to* Starmer over the child rape gangs. Unlike Trump, she's not in a position to do any censorship, either soft or hard so it's just moronic politics. Raising the issue again just reminds people that she did spike interest rates and nearly brought down a load of pension funds - ironically, just at the time that Labour should be facing heat on the issue.

    Like most self-proclaimed champions of free speech, Liz Truss means hers, not ours.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003
    biggles said:

    Our national budget is basically healthcare, welfare, police, schools, transport and defence. The rest is noise. And, frankly, it’s telly just health and welfare. Hard to find deep and meaningful cuts.
    foreign aid , the 22Bn to be wasted by Milliband , costs of MP's/HOL etc could all be cut and save lots of money as a first stroke.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,660
    What gets me about these planning fandangos is that they assume that doing something is cost and not doing something is saving.

    Dirty Leeds. No metro despite repeated studies and reports. No decent roads north of the LeedsBradford area. Horrible traffic congestion, horrible conditions, something obviously needed to have been built.

    What has been the cost of Leeds getting gummed up by traffic for all these years? Not building anything means slower economic growth and a city that is economically smaller than it could have been.

    And yet with the post-Thatcher settlement where it’s always cost and not benefit, the view is that we’ve somehow saved money. We haven’t.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,955
    Leon said:

    Yes that's maybe true - but I just don't know. I am not like normal people

    However the possibility that it is true is why I would airbnb my flat, or rent it, short term, rather than selling it
    Get a lodger in: I assume you have more than one bedroom. You can charge them a rent up to £7,500 tax-free and not fill out any paperwork. When you are on your travels they can keep an eye out for burst pipes and other stuff. When you are at home they can provide conversation. It's like having a large budgie that feeds itself.

    Take care to choose the right person: male contractors from out-of-town with young children elsewhere are the best, as all they want to do is come home, Zoom/Team with their kid and wife about whether they had a good day, watch telly/internet and go to bed. Women want a more social experience which doesn't work for me but might for you. Don't have young people: they will inevitably have friends/boyfriends/girlfriends around and that's an accident waiting to happen.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,840

    Cost of housing, innit?

    If you have a paid-off mortgage, life is probably still pretty peachy. If you are paying 2025-level market rents, you are stuffed no matter how much you earn.

    Until that gets fixed, not much else matters. Increased prosperity just feeds into higher house prices so why bother?

    This government, imperfect as it is, does seem to get that better than the alternatives. Whether it gets it well enough remains to be seen.

    (And how much of the moaning here is people doing badly themselves, as opposed to people hearing that it's going badly and resenting being out of power themselves?)
    Yup - if you are spending more than half your post tax income on housing....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003
    Taz said:

    Incentive matter. 20,000 millionaires have left since COVID.

    Some people say if they want to go let them. But then who pays the taxes they pay ?

    That's the issue.

    This is not new either. You cannot blame Reeves for this although arguably she has made it worse.
    Labour started the avalance of immigration, pretty obvious flooding the country with economic migrants is going to cause huge damage. It does not affect the rish or MP's so they don't give a toss.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 623
    Taz said:

    Reeves is trying to tax her way to growth. Hardly a winning strategy.

    It will be "one off wealth tax on millionaires" next.
    Perhaps they should offer Musk citizenship first.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,840
    kjh said:

    No it isn't. You are calling for a people's vote to get rid of Labour literally months after the election. That isn't a life span of a typical parliament. I'm no fan of labour, but that is not how a democracy works.

    You can't keep asking for a GE when you don't like what the Govt does, particularly if it has a large majority.
    I recall lots of people asking for General Elections when Thatcher was in power. And other governments since.

    You can keep asking for a GE when you don't like what the Govt does.

    You are unlikely to get it, but thems the breaks.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,140
    "Los Angeles mayor silent when asked if she owes citizens apology over handling of wildfires
    Karen Bass remained silent as Sky News asked the mayor if she regrets cutting the fire service's budget."

    https://news.sky.com/video/los-angeles-mayor-silent-when-asked-if-she-owes-citizens-apology-over-handling-of-wildfires-13285826
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,902

    What gets me about these planning fandangos is that they assume that doing something is cost and not doing something is saving.

    Dirty Leeds. No metro despite repeated studies and reports. No decent roads north of the LeedsBradford area. Horrible traffic congestion, horrible conditions, something obviously needed to have been built.

    What has been the cost of Leeds getting gummed up by traffic for all these years? Not building anything means slower economic growth and a city that is economically smaller than it could have been.

    And yet with the post-Thatcher settlement where it’s always cost and not benefit, the view is that we’ve somehow saved money. We haven’t.

    There is at least one small glimmer of planning improvement in the government's proposals for streamlining environmental assessments.
    Though it will require further legislation, which they are now consulting on.

    This, published in December, seems sensible.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-reform-working-paper-development-and-nature-recovery/planning-reform-working-paper-development-and-nature-recovery
    Our proposals
    13. We want to meet these objectives by taking 3 steps for which the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will provide the necessary legislative underpinning.

    a) Moving responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. This will allow action to address environmental impacts from development to be taken strategically, at an appropriate geographic scale, rather than at the level of an individual project – while recognising the importance of protecting local communities’ access to nature and green space.

    b) Moving more responsibility for planning and implementing these strategic actions onto the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and with the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature.

    c) In turn, allowing impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment that helps fund strategic actions, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level environmental assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Nigelb said:

    This is not an ideological point, though - it's simply a massive and unnecessary waste of money.

    A competent opposition would be raising this weekly at PMQs - without going down the rabbithole of "decolonialisation", which is a distraction of no interest to the majority of the electorate. Likely including the majority of Labour's "base", as opposed to their activists.

    That £9bn, and the £15bn you'd free up by cutting three quarters of the CCS commitment (leaving the balance to fund genuine research), would replace a large slug of the headroom Reeves just lost.
    Yes, and this is why her "black hole" shtick didn't land, because people didn't think Labour were forced to raise taxes but did so through choice.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113
    viewcode said:

    Get a lodger in: I assume you have more than one bedroom. You can charge them a rent up to £7,500 tax-free and not fill out any paperwork. When you are on your travels they can keep an eye out for burst pipes and other stuff. When you are at home they can provide conversation. It's like having a large budgie that feeds itself.

    Take care to choose the right person: male contractors from out-of-town with young children elsewhere are the best, as all they want to do is come home, Zoom/Team with their kid and wife about whether they had a good day, watch telly/internet and go to bed. Women want a more social experience which doesn't work for me but might for you. Don't have young people: they will inevitably have friends/boyfriends/girlfriends around and that's an accident waiting to happen.
    Many decades ago, when I was living in London, I flat-sat for a colleague (boss, actually) whilst he went on a long holiday. He paid me well, and his flat was massive, and a very pleasant part of Greenwich. Much better than the poky flat I was living in near Chelsea. It was also nice to be living in the heart of Greenwich, as opposed to the north end of the Isle of Dogs, as I had a year or so earlier.

    I was actually slightly flattered that he asked me, as I was only in my early twenties at the time, and he had lots of expensive stuff that could be damaged. I've since heard that some insurance companies put up their insurance if a house is left unoccupied for more than a month?
  • TazTaz Posts: 17,198
    edited January 9
    malcolmg said:

    Labour started the avalance of immigration, pretty obvious flooding the country with economic migrants is going to cause huge damage. It does not affect the rish or MP's so they don't give a toss.
    Especially unskilled migrants who, effectively, become a net drain on the taxpayer.

    But then Boris was New Labour on Steroids when it came to that.

    No, it does not affect those in power and they care little for us and our communities and the impact their policies have, across the board, on us. Except when they want our vote.

    They care about our money though, and are very happy to take more and more of it for less and less delivery.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090

    Well that's bollocks. With a year and a half to go before the election, what about the swingback you were all expecting at that moment.
    No, it was fully priced in by then.

    No-one was expecting a recovery. After the Windsor Agreement, that led to virtually no bounce, it was all downhill for Sunak.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,313
    Andy_JS said:

    "Los Angeles mayor silent when asked if she owes citizens apology over handling of wildfires
    Karen Bass remained silent as Sky News asked the mayor if she regrets cutting the fire service's budget."

    https://news.sky.com/video/los-angeles-mayor-silent-when-asked-if-she-owes-citizens-apology-over-handling-of-wildfires-13285826

    The fire budget could have been 10x as large and they still would have happened.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003
    Leon said:

    She has made it a WHOLE lot worse

    Here’s the deal on Britain and why we’re fucked. We really really rely on London to attract rich people and innovation and energy and talent. Without London we are basically screwed. I know people don’t like hearing that but it is the case

    Now London has been in decline for a while. Its peak was probably about 2010? Many things have contributed to this (yes Brexit was one of them) but sadly it is true whatever the cause. This is why property prices are stagnant or, in places, falling quite fast

    The stock market is in a bad place. Nightlife has cratered. It’s just not as appealing a city as it was. Mass migration has transformed huge swathes and not in ways that rich people find particularly pleasing

    People don’t move to london so they can live in a rainier more expensive version of Karachi or nairobi

    So the whole great machine that has been driving the British economy for decades - london - is on the blink. I can actually see this likely getting worse not better under Labour and the execrable khan which means at least another half decade of immiseration

    I wish this wasn’t true. I love my country and my home city. But I can see its problems with my own eyes. And I can compare, as I travel so much

    On the other hand I see similar problems all over the world. Paris is often shabby and dangerous - worse than London. American cities can be awful. Half the world is in turmoil, Covid has taken a weird sad toll everywhere, especially on urban life and main streets

    However the UK is uniquely dependent on london in a way that is not true of the USA vis a vis NYC or LA or Germany Berlin or even France Paris

    This leaves us in a bad spot. We desperately need a British bukele to make the uk capital safe clean optimistic and dynamic again. Or we accept london is toast and concentrate on turnip farming around Wick
    That si why the country is f**ked as all the money is squandered in London, vanity projects and rent for benefits. Is it any wonder people risk everything to get to Uk so they can get free house in London. They must think they have won the lottery , from a tent in the arsehole of nowhere to free house, services and money in London.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,485

    https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/about/population-history-of-london

    "In 1851, over 38 percent were born somewhere else."
    "by 1901 the proportion of Londoners born elsewhere had declined to just 33 percent of the total"
    "The 1901 census recorded 33,000 Londoners as having been born in British colonies or dependencies."
    Does it make a difference if the "somewhere else" is Lincolnshire or Lagos?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,113
    RobD said:

    The fire budget could have been 10x as large and they still would have happened.
    Yes, but allegedly there isn't enough water to fight the fires. That is highly non-optimal, and *is* funding related. And you can do a heck of a lot to mitigate the fires, and their effects.

    But yes, they will still happen.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    Many decades ago, when I was living in London, I flat-sat for a colleague (boss, actually) whilst he went on a long holiday. He paid me well, and his flat was massive, and a very pleasant part of Greenwich. Much better than the poky flat I was living in near Chelsea. It was also nice to be living in the heart of Greenwich, as opposed to the north end of the Isle of Dogs, as I had a year or so earlier.

    I was actually slightly flattered that he asked me, as I was only in my early twenties at the time, and he had lots of expensive stuff that could be damaged. I've since heard that some insurance companies put up their insurance if a house is left unoccupied for more than a month?
    I think it's more that the insurance companies say piss off after a month or two and special arrangements/rates then have to be made. Definitely something to check, including whether building and contents insurances differ on this.

    Even in the circs of an empty house after a death it can be tricky, though easier (albeit removing valuables etc.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,902

    Yes, and this is why her "black hole" shtick didn't land, because people didn't think Labour were forced to raise taxes but did so through choice.
    I think they likely were forced to raise taxes - as would a Conservative government have been - unless they were going to cut a whole load of stuff.

    But while it would be fair to claim that the last government made a raft of essentially unfunded spending commitments for the post election period, the "black hole of £Xbn" thing was always nonsense, since government funding is always a moving target.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,313

    Yes, but allegedly there isn't enough water to fight the fires. That is highly non-optimal, and *is* funding related. And you can do a heck of a lot to mitigate the fires, and their effects.

    But yes, they will still happen.
    I doubt a realistic increase in how much water was available would have made that much of a difference given the scale of the fires, and how quickly they spread.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    Yes, but allegedly there isn't enough water to fight the fires. That is highly non-optimal, and *is* funding related. And you can do a heck of a lot to mitigate the fires, and their effects.

    But yes, they will still happen.
    Serious drought ...

    Still not clear to me who owns the wood and scrubland.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003
    AnneJGP said:

    For a very long time I've believed that everybody should pay income tax - even people on benefits should know that they'd be getting £X more without paying the tax. So a zero personal allowance. But no idea how one would resolve the step-change from now to then since for the very low paid it would mean employers paying more to cover the loss due to tax.

    Good morning, everybody.
    Some on benefits get huge amounts of money , free housing , cars , etc and pay not a penny in tax. Yet people working and getting a fraction of their benefits are paying tax , have to pay their own house , council tax , etc
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,347
    edited January 9
    Carnyx said:

    Serious drought ...

    Still not clear to me who owns the wood and scrubland.
    Just because they own the scrub it doesn't necessarily follow that they're allowed to clear it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090

    Nah. I've not demanded all your money. Far from. But from what I see, you live a good life. Others, who work harder than you, and take many more risks, are much less rewarded.

    I want to reward those who work hard, and also those who take risks (e.g. in starting up businesses). But that has to be tempered by the fact you also live in society. If you take risks and fail - as can happen if it is a genuine risk - then you should not be left destitute.

    And an awful lot of people earn money with very little risk - in both the private and public sector.

    If, heaven forfend, you are taken ill, then you would want the doctors and nurses who look after you not to be overworked and to have access to all the equipment you need? Why should the binmen who are out collecting our bins this morning not get paid well for work I wouldn't want to do? How about a careworker I know who just told me he got threatened by an elderly patient, and the police had to be called?

    We live in a society, and that society needs to work as a whole. We are not islands.
    Yeah, but this is motherhood and apple pie stuff and you could use it to defend any level of tax. In fact, you just have. Because you're using it as an argument to pay tax - period - and not acknowledging there's a limit. What it comes down to is resentment that some people earn more than you, and you want some of it.

    When you tax people at 60%+ for stressful jobs, that involve a lot of stress, professional and personal risk (no-one gets paid a good salary for a simple job just about anyone can do) then at some point they will say, fuck it.

    You will have no recourse to criticise them.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,973
    Nigelb said:

    There are plenty of European case studies to show how quickly the planning can be done, too.
    Here it's an extended, and expensive game of ping pong between national and local government.
    The obvious and massive benefit of trams is they run on roads. You don't need to kill any newts or knock any cathedrals down to put them in. The planning process should be much, much quicker than a new road or something.

    + prioritised signals + load 100 people in 30 seconds + quiet + no road wear
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,017

    Does it make a difference if the "somewhere else" is Lincolnshire or Lagos?
    The cultural gap between 1851 rural Lincolnshire and London would have been quite big. Throughout the last two hundred years there have been tensions between newcomers and born and bred Londoners, whether huguenots, Irish, Jewish, Caribbean, Eastern European, Asian or African. Mostly low level with occasional times where it ramps up. Over time the newcomers become the born and bred, then a different set of new people arrive. Is it different, sure, does it alter that dynamic significantly, probably not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Nigelb said:

    I think they likely were forced to raise taxes - as would a Conservative government have been - unless they were going to cut a whole load of stuff.

    But while it would be fair to claim that the last government made a raft of essentially unfunded spending commitments for the post election period, the "black hole of £Xbn" thing was always nonsense, since government funding is always a moving target.
    There was £9-10bn of commitments that had yet to be treated, and Hunt hadn't settled all the pay deals not the next CSR for departments.

    But there's no doubt in my mind he'd have settled those at lower levels with more conditions than the existing administration, and made more productivity demands.

    Sure, we might have seen a bit more/longer industrial action as the counterfoil for a time - but we're getting a lot of that now anyway.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,973
    edited January 9

    There was £9-10bn of commitments that had yet to be treated, and Hunt hadn't settled all the pay deals not the next CSR for departments.

    But there's no doubt in my mind he'd have settled those at lower levels with more conditions than the existing administration, and made more productivity demands.

    Sure, we might have seen a bit more/longer industrial action as the counterfoil for a time - but we're getting a lot of that now anyway.
    He also massively cut capital spending, which Labour have had to reinstate to it's admittedly pathetic pre-Hunt-budget levels.

    (There's absolutely no way Hunt would've taken on the NHS unions, strikes during a winter flu crisis lol. The gerontocracy would've gone berserk)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Sean_F said:

    WRT the rich, no one should complain about paying 35% or so of their income to live in a first world, low crime, country. The kind of rich person, like David Wasserman, who resents any form of taxation, then begs for help when his home is in danger of being burned, is an arse.

    But, they have every right to expect their taxes to be spent wisely, and stuff like the Chagos deal, or paying people to claim asylum here, is not spending wisely.

    I can't see any point in anyone in Britain now doing a job with a salary between 100k and 180k, because of tax. [you have to be earning really big bucks before it no longer matters, and even then 47% evaporates before you get out the door]

    In fact, I know a lot of people (my wife being one) who keep their earnings beneath 100k deliberately, which is equivalent of only about 65k a few years ago - and not "rich".
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,051

    I agree. Mrs J is in that situation. She could be earning more in Turkey - or the USA - than here. But we don't move. Why? Partly the reasons she moved to this country in the first place, and partly because the UK is still a good place to live on a moderate income.

    Others disagree. But the country needs more money to fix problems it has. Austerity - which I was in favour of - has been tried, and probably went too far. So how else do we get the money? There is no magic money tree.
    Isn’t this attitude from you and Mrs J selfish? Mrs J could earn more and contribute more in taxes to the country that nurtured her but instead she has upped sticks to another country for reasons she has decided are better for her rather than society in general?

    And frankly if you worked a bit harder you could contribute more in taxes to the UK but instead you rather selfishly have decided to balance your work and life to suit the needs of your family?

    I think it’s perfectly fair and correct that you and Mrs J have chosen your residence to suit your priorities over the needs of a country as a whole.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,145

    Metros are even more expensive.

    Trams can run on lower energy, due to reduced coefficient of friction, and be electrified and pull longer/heavier loads; they are also more reliable than buses.
    Metros are only more expensive in terms of the costs to build and run. But they move a lot more people (and cause less disruption) so in terms of passenger usage they're better value.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003

    Because we're run by fucking muppets who have starry-eyed idealistic views about the purety of "international law" and put it on a pedestal, and want to virtue-signal they've done real Decolonisation to their base.
    Yes and given they are loaded and don't need any services, all paid for by us , they don't a toss about squandering public funds for their ideological f**kwittery.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,145
    boulay said:

    I think Starmer and co complaining about unfair attacks need to be a little bit careful in case people pick up what Marina Hyde just wrote in her latest Guardian column:

    “I find it difficult to forget now, and wrote about it at the time, but less than two years ago Keir Starmer approved and stood by an attack ad, disseminated on all the social media platforms, which used a picture of Rishi Sunak, next to the words “Do you think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison? Rishi Sunak doesn’t.” Sunak’s famous signature was added for good measure. Joining in the race to the bottom benefits no one, as the prime minister is now finding out. The sense that people like him have played politics rather than done politics is well entrenched.”
    It's not Starmer complaining though: it's Truss.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,003
    Nigelb said:

    I think they likely were forced to raise taxes - as would a Conservative government have been - unless they were going to cut a whole load of stuff.

    But while it would be fair to claim that the last government made a raft of essentially unfunded spending commitments for the post election period, the "black hole of £Xbn" thing was always nonsense, since government funding is always a moving target.
    they could have filled teh hole with Miliband's 22 Billion waste of money, tying train drivers and doctors to productivity, etc
This discussion has been closed.