Does Kemi need to be more modest and self effacing? – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

Hahahah! I just got round the Burmese internet firewall

IN YOUR FACE, OBSCURE MYANMAR GENERAL IN NAYPYIDAW

I have reported you to the Myanmar authorities.

You should get used to tossing the salad in a Myanmar prison for the next twenty years.

Nigelb said:

bondegezou said:

Nigelb said:

bondegezou said:

Dopermean said:

Are there any markets on which of Trump's populist loons will exit first?
Allegedly RFK jnr is against seed oils as well as vax, which sets him against agri-business. Got to be value in who and how many are gone in 2025.

They need to be approved by the Senate before they can go! That’s the immediate question: will RFK Jnr ever get into post to start with.

Probably.
The Senate Republicans aren't going to turn down very many, if any, of Trump's basket of deplorables.
And there are more dangerous nominees than Kennedy

There are nominees who will doom Ukraine, but Kennedy, if he goes full anti-vax, could lead to hundreds of thousands of kids dying in the US.

I doubt it.
It's not as though he will be able to ban vaccines - or that there isn't a very large cohort of Americans who already refuse vaccination.

He's a dismal appointment, but others are potentially worse. And morally to alarm some Senate Republicans.

I believe he will be able to ban vaccines, although that's a worst case scenario. He could greatly increase non-vaccination. With vaccination, you can reach a tipping point where a small decrease in the proportion vaccinated can make a big difference in the number of cases.

Obviously, I hope none of this happens, but I think the potential for disaster here is immense.

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

UK has c.30m housing units for a population of c.67m people
France has c.38m housing units for a population of c.66m people

The UK is around EIGHT MILLION houses short of France, for the same population to within a margin of error.

That’s the scale of the housing shortage. You can easily build a couple of million new houses without much happening to prices either, because there’s so much pent-up demand and overcrowding in the market. How many 30-year-olds used to live with their parents before 2000, for example? For the vast majority of those in that situation, it isn’t by choice.

Yet France's overcrowding rate is 10x higher than the UK.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/housing-overcrowding.html

Abandoned houses are common in rural France. It's hard to think of any house being abandoned in this country, although I remember once visiting Toxteth in the 1990's, and it resembled descriptions of West Belfast in the 1970's.

Nigelb said:

theProle said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Labour on the ropes so pb.com...reverts to giving Kemi a kicking.

Have you SEEN today's papers?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyv47mpdly0o

The right wing press attacks Labour leadership, not exactly newsworthy.

The Guardian - right wing?

"Starmer backs Reeves and warns of "ruthless" public spending cuts"

Surely those who are right of centre will be cheering at the prospect of spending cuts?

Yes but I am more loving the fact that after been told for fourteen years that austerity was a choice that actually it is an economic reality.

That's the thing, it was a choice; now it's a necessity.

The flaw with Osborne's 'long term economic plan' was that, while sticking to discipline on current spending, he should not have cut investment.
Indeed he ought to have borrowed more for that.

I know the Thatcher household analogy is overused and incorrect, but at household level if interest rates are near zero you borrow to invest in almost anything giving a positive return; if they are 5 or 6% you think very carefully about what kind of investment will deliver that kind of ROI.

Or to adjust Cameron’s fixing the roof metaphor, you should take out a loan to fix the roof, festoon it with photovoltaics, install double glazing, build a granny annex and put a studio on the garden while the borrowing rate is nearly zero.

That's all well and good if you've a plan to pay off the debt at some point.

If your plan (as has been the plan of every chancellor since Ken Clarke) is to just add the borrowing to the national debt (it's free right, almost 0% interest!), all this means is that when interest rates return to normal you suddenly have to make massive cuts in spending, because suddenly you've a massive annual debt interest bill coming down the tracks at you.

Useless as she is, Reeves's current plight is only partly her fault; she's also reaping the rewards of 25 years worth of "borrowing to invest" started by Gordon Brown.

Unfortunately the proper fix for it (cutting spending to living within our means) is going to be terribly unpopular!

If you had borrowed more, using long term debt, to fund productive assets, when rates were rock bottom, they would easily have paid for themselves, though.
See, for example, tidal power.

At current interest rates, the case is much less compelling.

The trouble is, governments are terrible at figuring out which assets are productive. For starters for ten, they tend to mix up "financially productive" and "pay rises/handouts for our voters".

They also are very bad at distinguishing between real investment "we spent the money, and now have a productive asset" and current spending pretending to be investment "we are committing to spend invest £x every year for eternity, on an activity which may or may not produce a positive return".

Sean_F said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

UK has c.30m housing units for a population of c.67m people
France has c.38m housing units for a population of c.66m people

The UK is around EIGHT MILLION houses short of France, for the same population to within a margin of error.

That’s the scale of the housing shortage. You can easily build a couple of million new houses without much happening to prices either, because there’s so much pent-up demand and overcrowding in the market. How many 30-year-olds used to live with their parents before 2000, for example? For the vast majority of those in that situation, it isn’t by choice.

Yet France's overcrowding rate is 10x higher than the UK.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/housing-overcrowding.html

Abandoned houses are common in rural France. It's hard to think of any house being abandoned in this country, although I remember once visiting Toxteth in the 1990's, and it resembled descriptions of West Belfast in the 1970's.

Seems incredible now but central London was full of empty/abandoned properties in the early-mid 1980s. Hence my ability - with my friends - to squat in various beautiful Georgian houses/weird eye hospitals in and around Bloomsbury/holborn/fitzrovia for at least two years

We squatted one house on gower street for 6 months - with a room each - which must be worth £5m now

Sean_F said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

UK has c.30m housing units for a population of c.67m people
France has c.38m housing units for a population of c.66m people

The UK is around EIGHT MILLION houses short of France, for the same population to within a margin of error.

That’s the scale of the housing shortage. You can easily build a couple of million new houses without much happening to prices either, because there’s so much pent-up demand and overcrowding in the market. How many 30-year-olds used to live with their parents before 2000, for example? For the vast majority of those in that situation, it isn’t by choice.

Yet France's overcrowding rate is 10x higher than the UK.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/housing-overcrowding.html

Abandoned houses are common in rural France. It's hard to think of any house being abandoned in this country, although I remember once visiting Toxteth in the 1990's, and it resembled descriptions of West Belfast in the 1970's.

You think there are 8 million abandoned houses in France, and all of these contribute to the OECD's stats?

I think PBers just need to accept that ultimately this is an issue of wealth inequality (particularly intergenerational). On nearly every measure the UK has good or middling housing stats, in aggregate. If you think living in a house is better than living in a flat, we're one of the best countries in the world.

It's within those stats that you have a major issue. If I hadn't had the Charity of Mum and Dad* grant me £10,000s, and partner willing to live with me, I'd be among those still paying a very high proportion of my net income on rent for a tiny one-bed flat. Instead I pay less than 10% on my mortgage on a 2-bed.

*Parents who incidentally own several properties mortgage free, and who retired early.

carnforth said:

Sean_F said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

UK has c.30m housing units for a population of c.67m people
France has c.38m housing units for a population of c.66m people

The UK is around EIGHT MILLION houses short of France, for the same population to within a margin of error.

That’s the scale of the housing shortage. You can easily build a couple of million new houses without much happening to prices either, because there’s so much pent-up demand and overcrowding in the market. How many 30-year-olds used to live with their parents before 2000, for example? For the vast majority of those in that situation, it isn’t by choice.

Yet France's overcrowding rate is 10x higher than the UK.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/housing-overcrowding.html

Abandoned houses are common in rural France. It's hard to think of any house being abandoned in this country, although I remember once visiting Toxteth in the 1990's, and it resembled descriptions of West Belfast in the 1970's.

Used to see plenty of victorian houses with roofs caved in from the train when I was a child in the 80s. If there has been an advantage to higher house prices, it has been to make repairs economic. You don't see them now.

We've got a couple of empty shops with flats over RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of this town. Both shops and flats have been empty for ages.

carnforth said:

malcolmg said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

Yes, the lack of a high degree of second home ownership is a sign of market failure. Healthy stable property markets have much higher levels of vacant property and far more second homes.

In Italy, Eastern Europe and much of Scandinavia it’s just a norm for a family to have a summer house.

TimS said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

Yes, the lack of a high degree of second home ownership is a sign of market failure. Healthy stable property markets have much higher levels of vacant property and far more second homes.

In Italy, Eastern Europe and much of Scandinavia it’s just a norm for a family to have a summer house.

I’m always struck by this when I travel around mainland Europe. How it’s perfectly normal for many people to have a second home in the country. Even somewhere dirt poor like Moldova

When I was there last summer I asked people how bad Covid was and they said it was BAD but they also said “thank god I was able to go to our summer house in the country”

These are people living on $5k a year

Part of it may just be weather. Nowhere in Britain has reliably good summer weather so what’s the point in owning a second home in the UK when you can fly abroad and have a holiday in proper sunshine? Note that Holland - with equally dismal weather - also has very low levels of 2nd home ownership

Don’t forget that a lot of these “second homes” are large shacks on old family pasture land with a hand pump well and gas bottles or a generator.

Even a lot of the second homes Finnish and Swedish friends have in the mountains or lakes are effectively shacks.

It’s not all front line villas at puerto banus or a belle epoque mansion hugga-mugga with your favourite British advert camera man in Villefranche.

still a lot better than this dump , a shack here would be out of most people's reach

Planning is a devolved matter. Feel free to let me buy a plot of cheap in the highlands and build a shack.

Norwegians I used to work with couldn't understand why there are so few people in Scotland with summer cabins in the mountains, as is common in Norway.
Then I explained about the midgies.

On topic, it's a fair assessment. A bit of humour and self-deprecation would help. Sure she has it, she just thinks she needs to be seen in the Thatcher mould.

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

‘I’m 28 and earn £130k, but live a cash-poor life in London’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/im-28-and-earn-130k-but-scrimp-pension-millionaire/ (£££)

A Daily Telegraph reader with no student debt and earning £130,000 a year is salary sacrificing so much into their pension that they take home only £2,100 a month. So it is lucky they have free meals and coffee at work!

But once we've dried our tears, consider what this means. The increasingly common combination of salary sacrifice and high pension contributions mean that high-earners cut their income tax bills, remain eligible for benefits, especially around childcare, and on top of that get higher rate tax relief on those pension contributions.

It is absurd.

That’s silly behaviour, he’s obviously trying to get his income under the 40% tax rate, but if he can live on £2k a month in London then fair play I suppose.

There’s a growing number of people living like this though, especially in the US, who aim to retire at 40 with a couple of million in investments and live off the interest.

I bet many people who manage that end up unretiring or wanting to. Wish I'd got into something else post City. Or do I? Not sure. It depends how you look at it. Anyway, 64 now, so it's moot. It's great being 64. I get £2 off cinema tickets, would you believe. I'm going with my wife tomorrow and my ticket is cheaper than hers. Funny old world.

I retired at 65 and life was good. Foreign and local travel, cheap this and that. However it all went wrong 15 or 16 years later. When 'bodily ailments', largely the result of increasing age, began to develop.

Badenoch has a several problems but a big one I think is she's obsessed by social media. So she sees lots on her X timelines about The Topic Which We Must Not Discuss and goes on about that, not very effectively, instead of challenging the government on "can I make rent?", "if I have a critical illness, will it be treated?"

Starmer may not have the answers but at he at least tries to address the questions.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

‘I’m 28 and earn £130k, but live a cash-poor life in London’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/im-28-and-earn-130k-but-scrimp-pension-millionaire/ (£££)

A Daily Telegraph reader with no student debt and earning £130,000 a year is salary sacrificing so much into their pension that they take home only £2,100 a month. So it is lucky they have free meals and coffee at work!

But once we've dried our tears, consider what this means. The increasingly common combination of salary sacrifice and high pension contributions mean that high-earners cut their income tax bills, remain eligible for benefits, especially around childcare, and on top of that get higher rate tax relief on those pension contributions.

It is absurd.

That’s silly behaviour, he’s obviously trying to get his income under the 40% tax rate, but if he can live on £2k a month in London then fair play I suppose.

There’s a growing number of people living like this though, especially in the US, who aim to retire at 40 with a couple of million in investments and live off the interest.

It beats me why anyone thinks that doing nothing is a life aspiration - unless one is ill that is. Sorry all you retired folk on here who convince yourselves you do useful things with your time

By far the most useful things I've done with my life are ones outside work, most of which I've not been paid for.

OldKingCole said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

‘I’m 28 and earn £130k, but live a cash-poor life in London’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/im-28-and-earn-130k-but-scrimp-pension-millionaire/ (£££)

A Daily Telegraph reader with no student debt and earning £130,000 a year is salary sacrificing so much into their pension that they take home only £2,100 a month. So it is lucky they have free meals and coffee at work!

But once we've dried our tears, consider what this means. The increasingly common combination of salary sacrifice and high pension contributions mean that high-earners cut their income tax bills, remain eligible for benefits, especially around childcare, and on top of that get higher rate tax relief on those pension contributions.

It is absurd.

That’s silly behaviour, he’s obviously trying to get his income under the 40% tax rate, but if he can live on £2k a month in London then fair play I suppose.

There’s a growing number of people living like this though, especially in the US, who aim to retire at 40 with a couple of million in investments and live off the interest.

I bet many people who manage that end up unretiring or wanting to. Wish I'd got into something else post City. Or do I? Not sure. It depends how you look at it. Anyway, 64 now, so it's moot. It's great being 64. I get £2 off cinema tickets, would you believe. I'm going with my wife tomorrow and my ticket is cheaper than hers. Funny old world.

I retired at 65 and life was good. Foreign and local travel, cheap this and that. However it all went wrong 15 or 16 years later. When 'bodily ailments', largely the result of increasing age, began to develop.

Yes, health is more important that anything inc money.

OldKingCole said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

SNP to ban birthday cakes from nurseries

Why on earth would they be so idiotic ?

Completely joyless

There is probably a perfectly reasonable justification, for example nut allergies. Small children dying from anaphylactic shock is more joyless than missing out on a birthday cake.

That is not the reason

It is their campaign against obesity

Who'd be a political leader, eh? "Let them eat cake" didn't go down well, and now apparently "don't let them eat cake" is off-limits too. Johnson got accused of "cakeism" and poor old Rishi Sunak got a police caution for eating cake.

I like cake. Especially fruit cake, like Christmas cake. Sadly we've finished this years now and t'll be AGES before Mrs C makes another.


NB: don't suggest I d it; I've never tried and I don't think my hands will let me.

We are just finishing the last of the 2 x M & S Christmas cakes I bought for my wife and I to eat exclusively, as they really are very good

FF43 said:

Badenoch has a several problems but a big one I think is she's obsessed by social media. So she sees lots on her X timelines about The Topic Which We Must Not Discuss and goes on about that, not very effectively, instead of challenging the government on "can I make rent?", "if I have a critical illness, will it be treated?"

Starmer may not have the answers but at he at least tries to address the questions.

Shades of Bernard Ingham complaining that John Major insisted on reading the newspapers, which were invariably critical of him, rather than relying on the civil service press briefing as Mrs Thatcher had done.

OldKingCole said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

‘I’m 28 and earn £130k, but live a cash-poor life in London’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/im-28-and-earn-130k-but-scrimp-pension-millionaire/ (£££)

A Daily Telegraph reader with no student debt and earning £130,000 a year is salary sacrificing so much into their pension that they take home only £2,100 a month. So it is lucky they have free meals and coffee at work!

But once we've dried our tears, consider what this means. The increasingly common combination of salary sacrifice and high pension contributions mean that high-earners cut their income tax bills, remain eligible for benefits, especially around childcare, and on top of that get higher rate tax relief on those pension contributions.

It is absurd.

That’s silly behaviour, he’s obviously trying to get his income under the 40% tax rate, but if he can live on £2k a month in London then fair play I suppose.

There’s a growing number of people living like this though, especially in the US, who aim to retire at 40 with a couple of million in investments and live off the interest.

I bet many people who manage that end up unretiring or wanting to. Wish I'd got into something else post City. Or do I? Not sure. It depends how you look at it. Anyway, 64 now, so it's moot. It's great being 64. I get £2 off cinema tickets, would you believe. I'm going with my wife tomorrow and my ticket is cheaper than hers. Funny old world.

I retired at 65 and life was good. Foreign and local travel, cheap this and that. However it all went wrong 15 or 16 years later. When 'bodily ailments', largely the result of increasing age, began to develop.

I am very similar, though we travelled worldwide for some years before I retired but yes 80 certainly saw my bodily ailments catch up with me

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

Perhaps the phrase is "to Labour it". That might sum it up.

It also sums up someone who has not taken adequate tax advice and lets Rachel Thieves take money that she need not have had.

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

I wish I could find people like Starmer to negotiate with, in my professional capacity.

Yea, but the joy would be diminished by having to listen to his dreary droning pompous voice throughout the deal.

"...the noise we hear echoing around markets and media is more the result of a fiscal rule that must now be abandoned.

Sidney Webb has been reported as saying when the UK left the gold standard in 1931 that “no-one said we could do that”. And here we go again. "

https://www.centralbanking.com/central-banks/economics/macroeconomics/7963612/the-uk-is-not-suffering-another-truss-shock?atv=lho67M1OYGTAoVlBSe1EX9o9lbUyW8FqpX1gRNNArqA

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

I wish I could find people like Starmer to negotiate with, in my professional capacity.

Yea, but the joy would be diminished by having to listen to his dreary droning pompous voice throughout the deal.

If only he'd learned to use that other his advantage.
We'd probably have Trump buying it from us to avoid having to discuss the finer detail.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

SNP to ban birthday cakes from nurseries

Why on earth would they be so idiotic ?

Completely joyless

There is probably a perfectly reasonable justification, for example nut allergies. Small children dying from anaphylactic shock is more joyless than missing out on a birthday cake.

That is not the reason

It is their campaign against obesity

Who'd be a political leader, eh? "Let them eat cake" didn't go down well, and now apparently "don't let them eat cake" is off-limits too. Johnson got accused of "cakeism" and poor old Rishi Sunak got a police caution for eating cake.

I like cake. Especially fruit cake, like Christmas cake. Sadly we've finished this years now and t'll be AGES before Mrs C makes another.


NB: don't suggest I d it; I've never tried and I don't think my hands will let me.

We are just finishing the last of the 2 x M & S Christmas cakes I bought for my wife and I to eat exclusively, as they really are very good

There is no chance a Christmas cake would still be around in our house. Each Stollen I made was gone within 24 hours, my wife's Christmas cake was gone by New Year.

I made 24 mince pies a bit earlier this year as I was taking some around to a friend. I took 6 with me. I ate 4 of them. I then ate the rest before Christmas so 22 of the 24 mince pies. I had to make another batch of mincemeat and pastry for the Christmas day mince pies.

I put on 6kg over Christmas, 3kg off already. Now continuing with my target of losing 17kg. 9kg to go, although before Christmas it was only 6kg to go.

Making the years marmalade now. First batch today. The sight of 6kg of sugar is a bit daunting.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

david_herdson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

SNP to ban birthday cakes from nurseries

Why on earth would they be so idiotic ?

Completely joyless

There is probably a perfectly reasonable justification, for example nut allergies. Small children dying from anaphylactic shock is more joyless than missing out on a birthday cake.

That is not the reason

It is their campaign against obesity

That again seems laudable.

Banning things is almost never laudable. Personal responsibility matters, as does an understanding of moderation.

I have noticed recently that supermarkets appear to be phasing out glass beer and cider bottles and replacing them with cans

At home, none of our family like cans and prefer to drink out of the bottle but apparently all such glass bottles are under threat due to a new green tax

And why are the left so joyless and controlling ?

Recycling aluminium is 90% less energy intensive than recycling glass, reducing demand and making energy more affordable for millionaire pensioners.

(I always pour my beer/wine into a glass - tastes way better).

Nigel_Foremain said:

david_herdson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

‘I’m 28 and earn £130k, but live a cash-poor life in London’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/im-28-and-earn-130k-but-scrimp-pension-millionaire/ (£££)

A Daily Telegraph reader with no student debt and earning £130,000 a year is salary sacrificing so much into their pension that they take home only £2,100 a month. So it is lucky they have free meals and coffee at work!

But once we've dried our tears, consider what this means. The increasingly common combination of salary sacrifice and high pension contributions mean that high-earners cut their income tax bills, remain eligible for benefits, especially around childcare, and on top of that get higher rate tax relief on those pension contributions.

It is absurd.

That’s silly behaviour, he’s obviously trying to get his income under the 40% tax rate, but if he can live on £2k a month in London then fair play I suppose.

There’s a growing number of people living like this though, especially in the US, who aim to retire at 40 with a couple of million in investments and live off the interest.

It beats me why anyone thinks that doing nothing is a life aspiration - unless one is ill that is. Sorry all you retired folk on here who convince yourselves you do useful things with your time

By far the most useful things I've done with my life are ones outside work, most of which I've not been paid for.

I am sure. My point is about a retirement industry, encouraged by government, that states that economic idleness is something to aspire to. That isn't to say that all retired people are in anyway idle (though I expect many are), just that it is crazy that we expect that our most experienced citizens should be encouraged to do nothing, sometimes when as young as 55. It is mental.

I'm about to give up at that age, but I've no intention of being idle. Plenty of voluntary things to do. And I get to assess whether I think it is useful rather than being told to do pointless corporate nonsense.

I've had a savings ratio of about 75% for the past few years - no mortgage, things in Flatland central are pretty cheap, I prefer a walk or getting on a bike to spending money on "stuff".

I've avoided 40% tax pretty much throughout, although I did accidentally pay £10 at the higher rate one year when the calculator went wrong.

It can be done, but probably not very easily in London.


On second homes, I quite fancied the idea (transitioning into a first home, perhaps) but the all the runes suggest it is going to be frowned on.

Though which is worse for the economy? Owing one unnecessarily large family home in an expensive place, or two small homes with just enough room to swing a cat in each?

In Scandiwegia the second 'home' is usually just a fancy cabin, though surely less soul destroying than a caravan in Cleethorpes where the ground rent doubles every year.

kinabalu said:

Eabhal said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Sean_F said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

UK has c.30m housing units for a population of c.67m people
France has c.38m housing units for a population of c.66m people

The UK is around EIGHT MILLION houses short of France, for the same population to within a margin of error.

That’s the scale of the housing shortage. You can easily build a couple of million new houses without much happening to prices either, because there’s so much pent-up demand and overcrowding in the market. How many 30-year-olds used to live with their parents before 2000, for example? For the vast majority of those in that situation, it isn’t by choice.

Yet France's overcrowding rate is 10x higher than the UK.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/housing-overcrowding.html

Abandoned houses are common in rural France. It's hard to think of any house being abandoned in this country, although I remember once visiting Toxteth in the 1990's, and it resembled descriptions of West Belfast in the 1970's.

Seems incredible now but central London was full of empty/abandoned properties in the early-mid 1980s. Hence my ability - with my friends - to squat in various beautiful Georgian houses/weird eye hospitals in and around Bloomsbury/holborn/fitzrovia for at least two years

We squatted one house on gower street for 6 months - with a room each - which must be worth £5m now

As a student - a STUDENT - I rented on my own a small flat, quite a nice one, just off Ken High St (the posher end). Did that for 2 terms without breaking the bank and all I was on was the grant. You couldn't do that now. Then again, when you think about it, that you could it then was pretty absurd. Today's ridiculous situation probably makes more sense than that.

Yet, as a proportion of income, housing costs for the poorest quartile have been flat since 1990. (And have decreased somewhat for the other quartiles).

Is that right? I'd have thought it would have gone up for most. Anyway, the main problem imo is we have home ownership as our main vehicle for wealth accretion and at the same time home ownership is out of reach unless you have wealth to start with. This unfortunate combination of things is baking high levels of inequality into society. Sort it out, politicians. Fix it.

It probably is true but misleading. Spending 30% of your income to live in a three bedroom terrace and 30% of your income to live in a flat share are both the same proportion of income but far from equivalent.

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

david_herdson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

SNP to ban birthday cakes from nurseries

Why on earth would they be so idiotic ?

Completely joyless

There is probably a perfectly reasonable justification, for example nut allergies. Small children dying from anaphylactic shock is more joyless than missing out on a birthday cake.

That is not the reason

It is their campaign against obesity

That again seems laudable.

Banning things is almost never laudable. Personal responsibility matters, as does an understanding of moderation.

I have noticed recently that supermarkets appear to be phasing out glass beer and cider bottles and replacing them with cans

At home, none of our family like cans and prefer to drink out of the bottle but apparently all such glass bottles are under threat due to a new green tax

And why are the left so joyless and controlling ?

Recycling aluminium is 90% less energy intensive than recycling glass, reducing demand and making energy more affordable for millionaire pensioners.

(I always pour my beer/wine into a glass - tastes way better).

And others prefer to drink it from the bottle

Your point about aluminium is fair enough but then you debase it by making a completely silly comment about millionaire pensioners, whoever they are

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

I wish I could find people like Starmer to negotiate with, in my professional capacity.

I am not sure where the confirmation has come from that the deal has been signed as Starmer, apparently, is to discuss it with cabinet tomorrow and the Mauritius Government hope it will be signed before next Monday

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/14/chagos-deal-could-be-signed-ahead-of-trump-inauguration/

It's worth noting that the talks had apparently been going on for some time, mostly under the previous goverment. The UK had been under international pressure to hand back the Chagos Islands after expelling their occupants in the 1960s. I don't know if this deal is right or not, but it's probably better than waiting for them to be taken from us by force in the future.

theakes said:

Why is she referred to as Kemi as if she is some long lost friend. Badenoch is the name is it not?.

For the same reason Blair wanted us to 'Just Call Me Tony'.

david_herdson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

‘I’m 28 and earn £130k, but live a cash-poor life in London’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/im-28-and-earn-130k-but-scrimp-pension-millionaire/ (£££)

A Daily Telegraph reader with no student debt and earning £130,000 a year is salary sacrificing so much into their pension that they take home only £2,100 a month. So it is lucky they have free meals and coffee at work!

But once we've dried our tears, consider what this means. The increasingly common combination of salary sacrifice and high pension contributions mean that high-earners cut their income tax bills, remain eligible for benefits, especially around childcare, and on top of that get higher rate tax relief on those pension contributions.

It is absurd.

That’s silly behaviour, he’s obviously trying to get his income under the 40% tax rate, but if he can live on £2k a month in London then fair play I suppose.

There’s a growing number of people living like this though, especially in the US, who aim to retire at 40 with a couple of million in investments and live off the interest.

It beats me why anyone thinks that doing nothing is a life aspiration - unless one is ill that is. Sorry all you retired folk on here who convince yourselves you do useful things with your time

By far the most useful things I've done with my life are ones outside work, most of which I've not been paid for.

I'm the same, certainly the most fulfilling ones. At least 80% of the things I've done at work were either a complete waste of time (project subsequently canned etc) or of at best marginal benefit to society. The exception was the 4 years I spent working for a University where I did 4 years' good and fulfilling work.

theakes said:

Why is she referred to as Kemi as if she is some long lost friend. Badenoch is the name is it not?.

Is this really an important issue ?

Keir or Starmer
Ange or Rayner
Rishi or Sunak

And so on

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

david_herdson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

SNP to ban birthday cakes from nurseries

Why on earth would they be so idiotic ?

Completely joyless

There is probably a perfectly reasonable justification, for example nut allergies. Small children dying from anaphylactic shock is more joyless than missing out on a birthday cake.

That is not the reason

It is their campaign against obesity

That again seems laudable.

Banning things is almost never laudable. Personal responsibility matters, as does an understanding of moderation.

I have noticed recently that supermarkets appear to be phasing out glass beer and cider bottles and replacing them with cans

At home, none of our family like cans and prefer to drink out of the bottle but apparently all such glass bottles are under threat due to a new green tax

And why are the left so joyless and controlling ?

Recycling aluminium is 90% less energy intensive than recycling glass, reducing demand and making energy more affordable for millionaire pensioners.

(I always pour my beer/wine into a glass - tastes way better).

And others prefer to drink it from the bottle

Your point about aluminium is fair enough but then you debase it by making a completely silly comment about millionaire pensioners, whoever they are

A 6-pack of 500ml beers weighs 2kg more in bottles than in cans - an important difference when you're cycling your shopping home.

For you, but it makes no difference for millions who use their car to grocery shop or in our case have a weekly supermarket delivery to our home

...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

theakes said:

Why is she referred to as Kemi as if she is some long lost friend. Badenoch is the name is it not?.

Is this really an important issue ?

Keir or Starmer
Ange or Rayner
Rishi or Sunak

And so on

Starmer, Rayner and Rishi/Kemi. Even Natasha Clarke on LBC uses these terms.

noneoftheabove said:

kinabalu said:

Eabhal said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Sean_F said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

UK has c.30m housing units for a population of c.67m people
France has c.38m housing units for a population of c.66m people

The UK is around EIGHT MILLION houses short of France, for the same population to within a margin of error.

That’s the scale of the housing shortage. You can easily build a couple of million new houses without much happening to prices either, because there’s so much pent-up demand and overcrowding in the market. How many 30-year-olds used to live with their parents before 2000, for example? For the vast majority of those in that situation, it isn’t by choice.

Yet France's overcrowding rate is 10x higher than the UK.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/housing-overcrowding.html

Abandoned houses are common in rural France. It's hard to think of any house being abandoned in this country, although I remember once visiting Toxteth in the 1990's, and it resembled descriptions of West Belfast in the 1970's.

Seems incredible now but central London was full of empty/abandoned properties in the early-mid 1980s. Hence my ability - with my friends - to squat in various beautiful Georgian houses/weird eye hospitals in and around Bloomsbury/holborn/fitzrovia for at least two years

We squatted one house on gower street for 6 months - with a room each - which must be worth £5m now

As a student - a STUDENT - I rented on my own a small flat, quite a nice one, just off Ken High St (the posher end). Did that for 2 terms without breaking the bank and all I was on was the grant. You couldn't do that now. Then again, when you think about it, that you could it then was pretty absurd. Today's ridiculous situation probably makes more sense than that.

Yet, as a proportion of income, housing costs for the poorest quartile have been flat since 1990. (And have decreased somewhat for the other quartiles).

Is that right? I'd have thought it would have gone up for most. Anyway, the main problem imo is we have home ownership as our main vehicle for wealth accretion and at the same time home ownership is out of reach unless you have wealth to start with. This unfortunate combination of things is baking high levels of inequality into society. Sort it out, politicians. Fix it.

It probably is true but misleading. Spending 30% of your income to live in a three bedroom terrace and 30% of your income to live in a flat share are both the same proportion of income but far from equivalent.

But the proportion of people livings in flats is pretty much the lowest anywhere (Ireland beats us), our overcrowding rate is the lowest anywhere except NZ.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Sean_F said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

UK has c.30m housing units for a population of c.67m people
France has c.38m housing units for a population of c.66m people

The UK is around EIGHT MILLION houses short of France, for the same population to within a margin of error.

That’s the scale of the housing shortage. You can easily build a couple of million new houses without much happening to prices either, because there’s so much pent-up demand and overcrowding in the market. How many 30-year-olds used to live with their parents before 2000, for example? For the vast majority of those in that situation, it isn’t by choice.

Yet France's overcrowding rate is 10x higher than the UK.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/housing-overcrowding.html

Abandoned houses are common in rural France. It's hard to think of any house being abandoned in this country, although I remember once visiting Toxteth in the 1990's, and it resembled descriptions of West Belfast in the 1970's.

Seems incredible now but central London was full of empty/abandoned properties in the early-mid 1980s. Hence my ability - with my friends - to squat in various beautiful Georgian houses/weird eye hospitals in and around Bloomsbury/holborn/fitzrovia for at least two years

We squatted one house on gower street for 6 months - with a room each - which must be worth £5m now

As a student - a STUDENT - I rented on my own a small flat, quite a nice one, just off Ken High St (the posher end). Did that for 2 terms without breaking the bank and all I was on was the grant. You couldn't do that now. Then again, when you think about it, that you could it then was pretty absurd. Today's ridiculous situation probably makes more sense than that.

And when you graduated income tax was what? 30% - swings and roundabouts.

Eabhal said:

Amazing stat - over a quarter of all pensioners are millionaires. 3 million of them.

Is that largely based on house prices?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

I wish I could find people like Starmer to negotiate with, in my professional capacity.

I am not sure where the confirmation has come from that the deal has been signed as Starmer, apparently, is to discuss it with cabinet tomorrow and the Mauritius Government hope it will be signed before next Monday

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/14/chagos-deal-could-be-signed-ahead-of-trump-inauguration/

It's worth noting that the talks had apparently been going on for some time, mostly under the previous goverment. The UK had been under international pressure to hand back the Chagos Islands after expelling their occupants in the 1960s. I don't know if this deal is right or not, but it's probably better than waiting for them to be taken from us by force in the future.

I doubt it would register if Trump wasn't about to become POTUS as, apparently, he is against the deal

Ceteris paribus, that suggests it's a good deal and we should be signing it. Trump's track record on deals is abysmal.

SouthamObserver said:

Badenoch needs to change the Tory pitch, which is currently: "Reform are right, vote for us." The problem is she genuinely believes this so will find it very difficult to change.

It's true there are lots of votes available to the party that presents as the most anti-immigrant but it's the devil of a job to knock Farage off that perch when he's been camped there so noisily and for so long.

I can see the next GE shaping into a RUK vs Others affair and if my sums are right that spells a second term for Labour. They're a good bet at 2.85 for largest party imo. DYOR, long time, only a fool etc.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

david_herdson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

SNP to ban birthday cakes from nurseries

Why on earth would they be so idiotic ?

Completely joyless

There is probably a perfectly reasonable justification, for example nut allergies. Small children dying from anaphylactic shock is more joyless than missing out on a birthday cake.

That is not the reason

It is their campaign against obesity

That again seems laudable.

Banning things is almost never laudable. Personal responsibility matters, as does an understanding of moderation.

I have noticed recently that supermarkets appear to be phasing out glass beer and cider bottles and replacing them with cans

At home, none of our family like cans and prefer to drink out of the bottle but apparently all such glass bottles are under threat due to a new green tax

And why are the left so joyless and controlling ?

That's my industry !

One of our customers did can postpone indefinitely a big glass project in Wales recently.

No_Offence_Alan said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Sean_F said:

Eabhal said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Spain to impose a 100% tax on properties owned by non EU residents

"Spain plans 100% tax for homes bought by non-EU residents - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7enzjrymxo

100% not necessary but in the UK the non resident surcharge is just 2%. Bump it up to 10%-15% asap.

In a country starved of houses, it does feel that second homes and vacant investment lock up and leave properties are luxuries the nation cannot afford.

The occupancy rate in the U.K. is extremely high, in general. It’s one of the indicators of the scale of the shortage of housing

UK has c.30m housing units for a population of c.67m people
France has c.38m housing units for a population of c.66m people

The UK is around EIGHT MILLION houses short of France, for the same population to within a margin of error.

That’s the scale of the housing shortage. You can easily build a couple of million new houses without much happening to prices either, because there’s so much pent-up demand and overcrowding in the market. How many 30-year-olds used to live with their parents before 2000, for example? For the vast majority of those in that situation, it isn’t by choice.

Yet France's overcrowding rate is 10x higher than the UK.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/housing-overcrowding.html

Abandoned houses are common in rural France. It's hard to think of any house being abandoned in this country, although I remember once visiting Toxteth in the 1990's, and it resembled descriptions of West Belfast in the 1970's.

Seems incredible now but central London was full of empty/abandoned properties in the early-mid 1980s. Hence my ability - with my friends - to squat in various beautiful Georgian houses/weird eye hospitals in and around Bloomsbury/holborn/fitzrovia for at least two years

We squatted one house on gower street for 6 months - with a room each - which must be worth £5m now

As a student - a STUDENT - I rented on my own a small flat, quite a nice one, just off Ken High St (the posher end). Did that for 2 terms without breaking the bank and all I was on was the grant. You couldn't do that now. Then again, when you think about it, that you could it then was pretty absurd. Today's ridiculous situation probably makes more sense than that.

And when you graduated income tax was what? 30% - swings and roundabouts.

Higher than now, I think, yes. Also London was quite grimy.

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

I wish I could find people like Starmer to negotiate with, in my professional capacity.

I am not sure where the confirmation has come from that the deal has been signed as Starmer, apparently, is to discuss it with cabinet tomorrow and the Mauritius Government hope it will be signed before next Monday

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/14/chagos-deal-could-be-signed-ahead-of-trump-inauguration/

It's worth noting that the talks had apparently been going on for some time, mostly under the previous goverment. The UK had been under international pressure to hand back the Chagos Islands after expelling their occupants in the 1960s. I don't know if this deal is right or not, but it's probably better than waiting for them to be taken from us by force in the future.

I doubt it would register if Trump wasn't about to become POTUS as, apparently, he is against the deal

Why is he? Thought it was going to establish a US base for evermore.

No commission to Trump inc?

Andy_JS said:

Eabhal said:

Amazing stat - over a quarter of all pensioners are millionaires. 3 million of them.

Is that largely based on house prices?

That, plus saving £2 off their cinema tickets.

rottenborough said:

"...the noise we hear echoing around markets and media is more the result of a fiscal rule that must now be abandoned.

Sidney Webb has been reported as saying when the UK left the gold standard in 1931 that “no-one said we could do that”. And here we go again. "

https://www.centralbanking.com/central-banks/economics/macroeconomics/7963612/the-uk-is-not-suffering-another-truss-shock?atv=lho67M1OYGTAoVlBSe1EX9o9lbUyW8FqpX1gRNNArqA

Like the comment "The straitjacket of an inviolable fiscal rule helps us not one jot. A rule of thumb is helpful, but it should be a guide rather than a god." Nimble politics preferable to promising the earth and never delivering.

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

Absolutely disgusting. And deliberately and vindictively done before Trump takes office so he can't undo their treason.

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

I wish I could find people like Starmer to negotiate with, in my professional capacity.

I am not sure where the confirmation has come from that the deal has been signed as Starmer, apparently, is to discuss it with cabinet tomorrow and the Mauritius Government hope it will be signed before next Monday

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/14/chagos-deal-could-be-signed-ahead-of-trump-inauguration/

It's worth noting that the talks had apparently been going on for some time, mostly under the previous goverment. The UK had been under international pressure to hand back the Chagos Islands after expelling their occupants in the 1960s. I don't know if this deal is right or not, but it's probably better than waiting for them to be taken from us by force in the future.

I doubt it would register if Trump wasn't about to become POTUS as, apparently, he is against the deal

Ceteris paribus, that suggests it's a good deal and we should be signing it. Trump's track record on deals is abysmal.

I have no idea how good it is, but it seems to be in a rush to beat Trump

Lennon said:

Eabhal said:

Amazing stat - over a quarter of all pensioners are millionaires. 3 million of them.

Any chance of a link? I'd be interesting in delving into that a bit more. (ie how does it treat annuities which have already been bought for example)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

Absolutely disgusting. And deliberately and vindictively done before Trump takes office so he can't undo their treason.

I posted this earlier

I am not sure where the confirmation has come from that the deal has been signed as Starmer, apparently, is to discuss it with cabinet tomorrow and the Mauritius Government hope it will be signed before next Monday

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/14/chagos-deal-could-be-signed-ahead-of-trump-inauguration/

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Chagos deal signed

This is a deal so bad, so obviously stupid, craven, pitiful and self harming, there is no English word in the dictionary to describe it. Unless someone can think of a word which means “to pointlessly give away your property to someone who has no claim on it, while paying them heavily to take it from you”

Absolutely disgusting. And deliberately and vindictively done before Trump takes office so he can't undo their treason.

And, also, absolutely not true. The deal has not been signed yet.

Andy_JS said:

Latest poll from Canada

Con 47%
Lib 20%
NDP 18%
BQ 8%
Grn 5%
PPC 2%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2025_Canadian_federal_election#National_polls

What happens when the Right isn't split.

Which is what Canada went through in the nineties and early noughties.