They should be able to change the name back with ease.
Post of the week.
On Abrdn: maybe this is an indication that our society has passed peak insanity. We can no longer afford luxury beliefs like that of the superfluity of interior vowels.
Try ancient Hebrew which in its earlier forms had no vowels at all. Mss, Dvd 'nd Sml wld hv bn gr8 t txtng.
It had vowels. They just didn't write them down.
Makes it tough writing down your thoughts about Euboea or Euouae. And as for playing Scrbbl...it's even harder than investing in BRDN SST MNGMNT
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
One of my biggest bugbears is that we still have a situation where properties are unmetered. We would never do this for electricity or gas, so why is it allowed for water? Once you've paid your 388 quid where is the incentive to use less water? You can just run a tap all day for fun if you want.
Madness.
Hard to see why you would. There was a cartoon (xkcd? SMBC?) that I recall in which an engineer, finding his water supply was included in his rent, rigged up a water wheel to generate electricity from it. But I think most people wouldn't do this. I suppose the reason why most places aren't metered is that at the very low price at which water is supplied, it is quite price inelastic, and therefore it saves the water companies less than the cost of installation. What's the price of a bath in a metered property? 20p?
When I stayed at my parents post PhD but pre Post Doc for a few months my dad complained long and loud about the increased water my showers were using. My M-in-L had to be persuaded to get a meter (she was in a three bed bungalow on her own) and was astonished to see her bill reduce by half. So I think its worth doing and if we have a situation where we have massively leaky supplies, it would concentrate the minds of the suppliers a bit. I also think its plain unfair to have a mixed system.
I seem to use quite a lot of water and I only pay £13 a month with a meter. That seems very reasonable to me.
Without being too personal - are you living on your own? A five person household would use a fair bit more.
It was an utterly bonkers decision at the time, as lots of people said at the time.
It was n ttrly bnkrs dcsn t th tm, s ltd f ppl sd t th tm.
I recall the adverts when Norwich Union changed to Aviva. They went something along the lines of becoming what you've always wanted to be. Right - you don't want to be associated with a historic organisation, prefering the bland nothingness of a made up name.
We will know the end has come when you apply to read Gr8s at Xfrd.
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
One of my biggest bugbears is that we still have a situation where properties are unmetered. We would never do this for electricity or gas, so why is it allowed for water? Once you've paid your 388 quid where is the incentive to use less water? You can just run a tap all day for fun if you want.
Madness.
Hard to see why you would. There was a cartoon (xkcd? SMBC?) that I recall in which an engineer, finding his water supply was included in his rent, rigged up a water wheel to generate electricity from it. But I think most people wouldn't do this. I suppose the reason why most places aren't metered is that at the very low price at which water is supplied, it is quite price inelastic, and therefore it saves the water companies less than the cost of installation. What's the price of a bath in a metered property? 20p?
When I stayed at my parents post PhD but pre Post Doc for a few months my dad complained long and loud about the increased water my showers were using. My M-in-L had to be persuaded to get a meter (she was in a three bed bungalow on her own) and was astonished to see her bill reduce by half. So I think its worth doing and if we have a situation where we have massively leaky supplies, it would concentrate the minds of the suppliers a bit. I also think its plain unfair to have a mixed system.
I seem to use quite a lot of water and I only pay £13 a month with a meter. That seems very reasonable to me.
Without being too personal - are you living on your own? A five person household would use a fair bit more.
Nominally, but my girlfriend spends most of her time at mine and seems to enjoy multiple baths per day. I appreciate that a large family would likely do better without a meter but I would be surprised if one or two adults didn't do better with one as you are not paying for some ill-defined average.
So more "shock" overnight then. Except it isn't because this US administration is nothing if not predictable. Assume maximum stupidity and malevolence and you're there. I reckon the whole notion of a "US security guarantee" for Ukraine is becoming nonsensical. Any such guarantee from Donald Trump is worth precious little when he is no more trustworthy than Vladimir Putin. The same goes for the (supposedly) gold standard insurance of NATO deterrence. What value does Art5 have if the US no longer stands behind it?
Exactly.
A week ago, without offering a security guarantee Donald Trump was asking for $500 billion from Ukraine for nothing.
Now, even with a security guarantee Donald Trump would be asking for $500 billion from Ukraine for nothing.
It's simply extortion, sign the deal or die.
China is less of a threat to Europe than the US right now, and the way the US is behaving they are getting ever closer to the level of Russia.
I know Starmer's not going to come out and say it, and he'll keep banging on about not choosing between Europe and the US, but inside government they must now be scrambling to deal with the real threat of the US as a direct adversary.
NATO, the Special Relationship, the Transatlantic Alliance, Five Eyes, all completely trashed in 43 days.
Pretty much. Talk of being a "bridge" might go on for a while but in a Europe vs America split it's a no-brainer which way we jump.
I've just booked my first-ever running race for this weekend - a half marathon near Nottingham.
It feels odd to have done four triathlons, and so many thousands of miles of running, and never to have done an 'official' running race.
I've done f-all preparation aside from my usual exercise, and my taper's been non-existent. I'll just be happy if I get around, even DFL
(Dead F***ing Last...)
I've done more races than I care to remember but always blooming slow (even at my fittest I was only managing 8 minutes mileing). I have also had the joy of once coming last. Off road race near Swindon, midweek, so not a big field of runners. The year before I was slower but there were slower runners than me. The following year it seemed to be a bit more hard-core and despite a faster time, I was last... Generally most runners are really supportive. My only (totally unsolicited) advice would be to avoid getting sucked along too fast in the first half. Stick to your planned pace. I did the Swanage half once and was racing along (comparitively) the first half then totally bonked after 10 miles. Not helped by the water stations running out of water...
They should be able to change the name back with ease.
Post of the week.
On Abrdn: maybe this is an indication that our society has passed peak insanity. We can no longer afford luxury beliefs like that of the superfluity of interior vowels.
Try ancient Hebrew which in its earlier forms had no vowels at all. Mss, Dvd 'nd Sml wld hv bn gr8 t txtng.
It had vowels. They just didn't write them down.
Makes it tough writing down your thoughts about Euboea or Euouae. And as for playing Scrbbl...it's even harder than investing in BRDN SST MNGMNT
They got very grumpy, as I recall, that having changed their name from Aberdeen to Abrdn, people insisted on calling them Abrdn, insisting it should still be pronounced Aberdeen. To which I would reply - if you want me to pronounce the es, don't remove them from your name. I can't pronounce what isn't there. Like Daniel Levy insisting people don't call his football team 'Tottenham' because it doesn't fit with their branding.
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
(This is England.)
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
They should be able to change the name back with ease.
Post of the week.
On Abrdn: maybe this is an indication that our society has passed peak insanity. We can no longer afford luxury beliefs like that of the superfluity of interior vowels.
Try ancient Hebrew which in its earlier forms had no vowels at all. Mss, Dvd 'nd Sml wld hv bn gr8 t txtng.
It had vowels. They just didn't write them down.
Isn't the development of language and writing fascinating! I've always wondered if, had the West Africans had recognisable 'writing' in the 17th Century, whether the slave trade would ever had got going.
Lib Dem's "anti Trump niche" not earning significant dividends so far. Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home.
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
(This is England.)
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
Saving is deferred spending.
How much does the government want to discourage future spending and encourage future state reliance ?
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
(This is England.)
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
Thanks. I've saved this comment.
I guess the other thing you could do is talk to all your neighbours and all ask for one at the same time!
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
One of my biggest bugbears is that we still have a situation where properties are unmetered. We would never do this for electricity or gas, so why is it allowed for water? Once you've paid your 388 quid where is the incentive to use less water? You can just run a tap all day for fun if you want.
Madness.
Hard to see why you would. There was a cartoon (xkcd? SMBC?) that I recall in which an engineer, finding his water supply was included in his rent, rigged up a water wheel to generate electricity from it. But I think most people wouldn't do this. I suppose the reason why most places aren't metered is that at the very low price at which water is supplied, it is quite price inelastic, and therefore it saves the water companies less than the cost of installation. What's the price of a bath in a metered property? 20p?
When I stayed at my parents post PhD but pre Post Doc for a few months my dad complained long and loud about the increased water my showers were using. My M-in-L had to be persuaded to get a meter (she was in a three bed bungalow on her own) and was astonished to see her bill reduce by half. So I think its worth doing and if we have a situation where we have massively leaky supplies, it would concentrate the minds of the suppliers a bit. I also think its plain unfair to have a mixed system.
I seem to use quite a lot of water and I only pay £13 a month with a meter. That seems very reasonable to me.
Without being too personal - are you living on your own? A five person household would use a fair bit more.
Nominally, but my girlfriend spends most of her time at mine and seems to enjoy multiple baths per day. I appreciate that a large family would likely do better without a meter but I would be surprised if one or two adults didn't do better with one as you are not paying for some ill-defined average.
I am too old to give advice, but she sounds like one to hang on to, especially at £13 per month, if I have the story right.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
Saving is deferred spending.
How much does the government want to discourage future spending and encourage future state reliance ?
Saving (except in a sock under the bed) is both your deferred spending and someone else's spending right now.
They should be able to change the name back with ease.
Post of the week.
On Abrdn: maybe this is an indication that our society has passed peak insanity. We can no longer afford luxury beliefs like that of the superfluity of interior vowels.
It would be nice, now, if they could focus on the business and driving returns for shareholders.
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
(This is England.)
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
Many years ago, when water meters were starting to be installed, I decided that, as we then lived in quite a large house and the children had left home, we ought to have a meter, instead of paying rates. So the water company fitted a meter but unfortunately fitted a faulty one and for some nine months we were recorded as using no water and were charged nothing. It was only when we were selling the house and the purchasers wanted a check that the fault was discovered.
Canada. Hmmm. I probably need a neutral source for this.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with King Charles III on Monday and reportedly discussed the King making a public declaration in support of Canada's sovereignty.
Charles, who is the head of state of Canada as a British commonwealth nation, drew backlash in Canada for extending an invitation for a state visit to Donald Trump, while Trump is actively promoting the idea of annexing Canada and making it the "51st state." ... Constitutionally, the King cannot take any political action in a nation unless formally asked to do so by the prime minister, so ministerial advice from Trudeau would be the first step in the King getting involved to defend Canada from Trump. https://meidasnews.com/news/trudeau-asks-king-charles-to-declare-canadas-sovereignty-in-response-to-trump-threat
Lib Dem's "anti Trump niche" not earning significant dividends so far. Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home.
"Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home."
Typical one-note haranguing from Barnett, demanding that Rayner criticise Trump's actions when she knows full well that Rayner is hamstrung by diplomatic considerations.
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
(This is England.)
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
Many years ago, when water meters were starting to be installed, I decided that, as we then lived in quite a large house and the children had left home, we ought to have a meter, instead of paying rates. So the water company fitted a meter but unfortunately fitted a faulty one and for some nine months we were recorded as using no water and were charged nothing. It was only when we were selling the house and the purchasers wanted a check that the fault was discovered.
That can cut both ways if there is a leak in the wrong place.
Not sure you could get any viable government out of that.
Most likely would be a Starmer minority government if he got LD, SNP, Green, PC and SDLP and Alliance and Independent support though Tories and Reform plus DUP, TUV and UUP also only about 10 seats from a majority too
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Typical one-note haranguing from Barnett, demanding that Rayner criticise Trump's actions when she knows full well that Rayner is hamstrung by diplomatic considerations.
I prefer that to the pretence that all is fine. It isn't.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
You can invest it in shares. Too many people are scared of this because we don't teach personal finance.
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
(This is England.)
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
Many years ago, when water meters were starting to be installed, I decided that, as we then lived in quite a large house and the children had left home, we ought to have a meter, instead of paying rates. So the water company fitted a meter but unfortunately fitted a faulty one and for some nine months we were recorded as using no water and were charged nothing. It was only when we were selling the house and the purchasers wanted a check that the fault was discovered.
That can cut both ways if there is a leak in the wrong place.
But ... pros and cons.
We had a leaky meter at the house to which we moved. Took ages to get it fixed but the water company didn't overcharge us, especially when they realised it was all down to them.
Republicans generally onboard. Even the ones who are not say "I don't want to appear that I'm hostile of Trump".
It is a cult.*
* (option to replace with n as preferred)
Is it a cult or an autocracy? Some may be on board because they support him but probably a lot are only on board because otherwise he'll destroy them. His threats to run MAGA candidates against incumbents are far worse now he has Musk/X fully onside.
Republicans generally onboard. Even the ones who are not say "I don't want to appear that I'm hostile of Trump".
It is a cult.*
* (option to replace with n as preferred)
Is it a cult or an autocracy? Some may be on board because they support him but probably a lot are only on board because otherwise he'll destroy them. His threats to run MAGA candidates against incumbents are far worse now he has Musk/X fully onside.
These are the views of ordinary voters, not elected officials. Even when they don't like it, they feel they cannot criticise it. It is a cult. Also an autocracy and kleptocracy.
Republicans generally onboard. Even the ones who are not say "I don't want to appear that I'm hostile of Trump".
It is a cult.*
* (option to replace with n as preferred)
Is it a cult or an autocracy? Some may be on board because they support him but probably a lot are only on board because otherwise he'll destroy them. His threats to run MAGA candidates against incumbents are far worse now he has Musk/X fully onside.
I suspect some GOP senators are concerned for their own and family personal safety if they step out of line.
Not sure you could get any viable government out of that.
Most likely would be a Starmer minority government if he got LD, SNP, Green, PC and SDLP and Alliance and Independent support though Tories and Reform plus DUP, TUV and UUP also only about 10 seats from a majority too
Yes but I doubt it'd last long. Another election within a year.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Other than house deposits, wedding funds, holidays, car replacements... absolutely nothing.
Republicans generally onboard. Even the ones who are not say "I don't want to appear that I'm hostile of Trump".
It is a cult.*
* (option to replace with n as preferred)
Is it a cult or an autocracy? Some may be on board because they support him but probably a lot are only on board because otherwise he'll destroy them. His threats to run MAGA candidates against incumbents are far worse now he has Musk/X fully onside.
I suspect some GOP senators are concerned for their own and family personal safety if they step out of line.
Not surprising given Trump hasordered all protection withdrawn froma number of notable people including Fauci and Bolton. And done it very publically as if inviting attacks on them.
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
(This is England.)
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
Many years ago, when water meters were starting to be installed, I decided that, as we then lived in quite a large house and the children had left home, we ought to have a meter, instead of paying rates. So the water company fitted a meter but unfortunately fitted a faulty one and for some nine months we were recorded as using no water and were charged nothing. It was only when we were selling the house and the purchasers wanted a check that the fault was discovered.
That can cut both ways if there is a leak in the wrong place.
But ... pros and cons.
We had a leaky meter at the house to which we moved. Took ages to get it fixed but the water company didn't overcharge us, especially when they realised it was all down to them.
Our next door had a leak for about 15 years (no water meter) which made about half an acre of ground sodden.
They discovered it when the next owners dug up the 2 foot thick (literally) 1950s concrete drive.
Adding it up, the water lost was a couple of Olympic swimming pools per annum.
New water bills beginning to arrrive. Mine is £388 up from £282. (One bedroom flat with no meter, listed building, owner won't help install meters).
(This is England.)
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
Many years ago, when water meters were starting to be installed, I decided that, as we then lived in quite a large house and the children had left home, we ought to have a meter, instead of paying rates. So the water company fitted a meter but unfortunately fitted a faulty one and for some nine months we were recorded as using no water and were charged nothing. It was only when we were selling the house and the purchasers wanted a check that the fault was discovered.
That can cut both ways if there is a leak in the wrong place.
But ... pros and cons.
A few years ago we had a leak under the house (no damage, but lots of water lost after the meter in the road but before it entered the house. By rights we owed over a thousand pounds but the water company wrote off the bill as we had notified them immediately on discovering the issue and had it repaired.
(It was a really odd thing - the leaky pipe was feeding the kitchen extension and did so by first going up to the landing then down a wall and underground to pop up in the kitchen. Must have split under the slab. Our new extension has no such silly pipework.)
Republicans generally onboard. Even the ones who are not say "I don't want to appear that I'm hostile of Trump".
It is a cult.*
* (option to replace with n as preferred)
Is it a cult or an autocracy? Some may be on board because they support him but probably a lot are only on board because otherwise he'll destroy them. His threats to run MAGA candidates against incumbents are far worse now he has Musk/X fully onside.
I suspect some GOP senators are concerned for their own and family personal safety if they step out of line.
Not surprising given Trump hasordered all protection withdrawn froma number of notable people including Fauci and Bolton. And done it very publically as if inviting attacks on them.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Other than house deposits, wedding funds, holidays, car replacements... absolutely nothing.
We started an ISA for each of our childen when they were born which was enough to pay for their maintainance fees at Uni and still leave enough for a house deposit. £100 a month each over 18 years with Skandia/Old Mutual (or whoever they have now become).
Not sure you could get any viable government out of that.
Next gov't will be a Labour minority backed up by the Tories and Lib Dems, you heard it here first. Farage LOTO.
Ok that's gone into my elephant's memory. I think Labour will win outright again. Farage LOTO very possible but on balance I think the Cons will shade that battle.
Another gorgeous sunny spring day. I don’t understand why we British moan about our climate
I’ve known nothing - literally nothing - but perfect cloudless skies ever since I returned
It's been like this all winter! (To some extent, at least. At the very least, I can report that my solar generation for February was 20% up on Feb 24.)
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Other than house deposits, wedding funds, holidays, car replacements... absolutely nothing.
We started an ISA for each of our childen when they were born which was enough to pay for their maintainance fees at Uni and still leave enough for a house deposit. £100 a month each over 18 years with Skandia/Old Mutual (or whoever they have now become).
Lib Dem's "anti Trump niche" not earning significant dividends so far. Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home.
"Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home."
Odd sort of comment.
Yes, nothing like coming up with a bit of interesting analysis and then trashing it by demonstrating some blatant personal bias.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Other than house deposits, wedding funds, holidays, car replacements... absolutely nothing.
We started an ISA for each of our childen when they were born which was enough to pay for their maintainance fees at Uni and still leave enough for a house deposit. £100 a month each over 18 years with Skandia/Old Mutual (or whoever they have now become).
Your children are lucky, I hope it makes things much easier for them.
Typical one-note haranguing from Barnett, demanding that Rayner criticise Trump's actions when she knows full well that Rayner is hamstrung by diplomatic considerations.
I prefer that to the pretence that all is fine. It isn't.
Barnett is only (repeatedly) asking (the same) question because she knows Rayner can't answer it. If Rayner was in a position where she could say what she thought of Trump's actions then Barnett wouldn't ask that question, she'd probably harangue her about something that was sub judice instead. It doesn't advance the debate, but then that's not Barnett's purpose.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
You can invest it in shares. Too many people are scared of this because we don't teach personal finance.
You can invest in a whole range of asset classes through a Stocks and Shares ISA as well as in funds, baskets of shares, as opposed to individual shares. The older you are your risk profile may be less risky than younger people
People worry as markets never go up in a straight line. Long term it’s a great driver of wealth but people panic when they see a paper loss.
What I think is certain is too much cash held is not generally a good thing.
Lib Dem's "anti Trump niche" not earning significant dividends so far. Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home.
"Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home."
Odd sort of comment.
Yes, nothing like coming up with a bit of interesting analysis and then trashing it by demonstrating some blatant personal bias.
Well at least it defines your target demographic as a LibDem. The "wavering cringey" vote.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Other than house deposits, wedding funds, holidays, car replacements... absolutely nothing.
We started an ISA for each of our childen when they were born which was enough to pay for their maintainance fees at Uni and still leave enough for a house deposit. £100 a month each over 18 years with Skandia/Old Mutual (or whoever they have now become).
Your children are lucky, I hope it makes things much easier for them.
We figured it was basically the cost of a foreign holiday each year. Which with the amount of overseas travel I do never really appealed much to me anyway. So they got mostly UK holidays but are much better set up for starting their adult life. We were goig to use it to pay the tuition fees as well but took advice from various quarters that they would find it much easier to pay the student fees loan bit each month than they would to get a deposit saved for a house. Hence the reason we did it that way.
Lib Dem's "anti Trump niche" not earning significant dividends so far. Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home.
"Some wavering cringey Labour supporters who had leaked to the Lib Dems heading home."
Odd sort of comment.
Yes, nothing like coming up with a bit of interesting analysis and then trashing it by demonstrating some blatant personal bias.
Well at least it defines your target demographic as a LibDem. The "wavering cringey" vote.
But how do you identify them. Bit of a tricky question when out canvassing - 'I just wondered madam are you a bit cringey by any chance? Can we put you down as a yes or a maybe?'
Typical one-note haranguing from Barnett, demanding that Rayner criticise Trump's actions when she knows full well that Rayner is hamstrung by diplomatic considerations.
I prefer that to the pretence that all is fine. It isn't.
Barnett is only (repeatedly) asking (the same) question because she knows Rayner can't answer it. If Rayner was in a position where she could say what she thought of Trump's actions then Barnett wouldn't ask that question, she'd probably harangue her about something that was sub judice instead. It doesn't advance the debate, but then that's not Barnett's purpose.
I really don't know why they bother with these interviews - totally pointless.
I normally avoid Today, WATO, Any Questions, Question Time etc like the plague.
An interesting climax coming up. The new American Government is open to bribery and nothing else. Morals, you can forget about. Sign on the dotted line and we're all yours.
Typical one-note haranguing from Barnett, demanding that Rayner criticise Trump's actions when she knows full well that Rayner is hamstrung by diplomatic considerations.
I prefer that to the pretence that all is fine. It isn't.
Barnett is only (repeatedly) asking (the same) question because she knows Rayner can't answer it. If Rayner was in a position where she could say what she thought of Trump's actions then Barnett wouldn't ask that question, she'd probably harangue her about something that was sub judice instead. It doesn't advance the debate, but then that's not Barnett's purpose.
It illustrates the fact that the government cannot - or won't - comment. That is entirely fair game for the BBC. There's no "debate" to "advance" if ministers won't debate in public. And if Rayner can't come up with a more adroit way of getting that across and closing it down, that's her problem.
Other leaders are less circumspect.
..“Please fasten your seatbelts, we’re entering a turbulence zone, one could say” Polish prime minister Donald Tusk said today while opening a meeting of the Polish cabinet in Warsaw.
In his opening remarks, Tusk warned of “unprecedented” risks facing Europe, including “the biggest in the last few decades when it comes to security”. He urged ministers in his coalition government to put party differences aside as he expected the need to make “extraordinary” decisions.
“As you know, a decision was announced to suspend the US aid for Ukraine, and perhaps start lifting sanctions on Russia. We don’t have any reason to think these are just words,” he said.
He added that the reports he was getting from the Polish-Ukrainian border and the Polish logistics hub in Rzeszów-Jasionka, used for supplies for Ukraine, confirmed that the US decision to suspend military aid to Ukraine had been implemented.
“This puts Europe, Ukraine, Poland in a more difficult situation that we now need to face,” he said...
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Other than house deposits, wedding funds, holidays, car replacements... absolutely nothing.
We started an ISA for each of our childen when they were born which was enough to pay for their maintainance fees at Uni and still leave enough for a house deposit. £100 a month each over 18 years with Skandia/Old Mutual (or whoever they have now become).
I’ve thought for a while now the govt, for the younger generations pensions, the govt should, for every child who turns 18, plonk £5,000 into a S&S ISA into something like an S&P 500 tracker, with low cost fees, which reinvests dividends and allow the power of compounding to do its work, and they would be able'to access this at the age of 67.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Other than house deposits, wedding funds, holidays, car replacements... absolutely nothing.
House deposits for FTB there is the lifetime ISA that beats inflation.
There is no reason whatsoever the others cannot be saved elsewhere.
Of course I just offer my view on cash savings. Not financial advice. I have most of my cash savings, small as it is, fixed at over 5%.
Typical one-note haranguing from Barnett, demanding that Rayner criticise Trump's actions when she knows full well that Rayner is hamstrung by diplomatic considerations.
I prefer that to the pretence that all is fine. It isn't.
Barnett is only (repeatedly) asking (the same) question because she knows Rayner can't answer it. If Rayner was in a position where she could say what she thought of Trump's actions then Barnett wouldn't ask that question, she'd probably harangue her about something that was sub judice instead. It doesn't advance the debate, but then that's not Barnett's purpose.
I really don't know why they bother with these interviews - totally pointless.
I normally avoid Today, WATO, Any Questions, Question Time etc like the plague.
I agree. Complete waste of time with no insight gained.
1. British households and businesses have spent too little and saved too much since the financial crisis. Private debt is way lower than it used to be. As a result government tax take is down and public debt is higher.
2. Labour came in on a manifesto of not raising VAT or income tax and employee NI, the big earners for the government.
3. Government needs more money and the economy needs more demand
Hence spend for victory. Here’s the bones of the speech: “We face the biggest security challenge since WW2, and we must fund a huge expansion in the defence budget while making sure we fix potholes, keep crime off the streets and reduce waiting lists. We promised not to raise tax. But you can do your bit. For every pound you spend on that new car (not Tesla) or that home extension or that trip to the cinema, or for you businesses that new IT system or warehouse automation, 20p goes straight to our fighting fund to get Britain growing and stick it to Putin. So I want you to go out and spend. Spend like you’ve never spent before. Your country needs you”
The people with the demand don't have the money.
The people with the money don't have the demand.
It leads back to housing, student debt and intergenerational inequality generally.
“Make saving expensive again”?
The previous govt was moving along those lines by lowering the amount of interest you could get before paying tax.
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
Other than house deposits, wedding funds, holidays, car replacements... absolutely nothing.
House deposits for FTB there is the lifetime ISA that beats inflation.
There is no reason whatsoever the others cannot be saved elsewhere.
Of course I just offer my view on cash savings. Not financial advice. I have most of my cash savings, small as it is, fixed at over 5%.
Probably the most dramatic day of Trump's Presidency so far and the clearest example yet of 'America First.'
All US aid paused to Ukraine until Zelensky agrees to peace talks. Tariffs imposed of 25% on Canadian and Mexican imports and 20% on Chinese imports.
Canada and China retaliate with retaliatory tariffs on US imports, 'Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada will immediately target $30bn worth of products, and target the remaining $125bn over 21 days. Any fresh duties Canada imposes will be in place for as long as the US tariffs are, Trudeau had said.
China has said that it will fight to the "bitter end" if the US continues its trade actions.
"If the United States... persists in waging a tariff war, a trade war, or any other kind of war, the Chinese side will fight them to the bitter end," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said at a regular press conference on Tuesday afternoon.
Beijing's counter measures - which include up to 15% tariffs on a range of American agricultural and food products - are to protect China's own interests, he said.'
Mexican President to announce their tariffs later today
Not sure you could get any viable government out of that.
Next gov't will be a Labour minority backed up by the Tories and Lib Dems, you heard it here first. Farage LOTO.
As of now, I think the Conservatives would more likely support Labour, than Reform.
In the Grand Coalition Government (2029-34), the 24 member cabinet will have 12 Labour Ministers, 8 Conservative Ministers and 4 Liberal Democrat Ministers.
Skinners not wanting jobs by the looks of it - because the money is coming from the Ukraine for weapons it’s not cash for them to give to their mates
I’m sure Ben Houchen and other mayors will be on the phone offering to subsidise a factory in their region
Oh sure. Given their long, long “moral struggle” with “putting weapons beyond use” and their problems with pub toilets*… the idea of the Shinners being a bit anti-weapon.
*Rumour says that the lady in question declared she was in the men’s toilet of the pub, on a certain occasion.
Comments
Charlie Peters
@CDP1882
Having watched the clip, Vance doesn't actually mention Britain/France.
He could be referring to the many other countries pledging support but without the pedigree of serious modern military deployments.
https://x.com/CDP1882/status/1896862177841348749
Donald has done well to finds a bigger **** than himself hasn't he?
My only (totally unsolicited) advice would be to avoid getting sucked along too fast in the first half. Stick to your planned pace. I did the Swanage half once and was racing along (comparitively) the first half then totally bonked after 10 miles. Not helped by the water stations running out of water...
US anecdotal reaction to Trump & Vance.
Republicans generally onboard. Even the ones who are not say "I don't want to appear that I'm hostile of Trump".
It is a cult.*
* (option to replace with n as preferred)
Like Daniel Levy insisting people don't call his football team 'Tottenham' because it doesn't fit with their branding.
Meters are often a difficult decision for LLs, as the next T may use more water - eg be a family or have dogs, and once it's in for 6 months, you can't get it out again. This does not apply in your case with a one bedroom flat, however. I've had Ts install them without me even knowing.
According to the CAB, you have a legal right to have one installed unless there are technical or other reasons why not (maybe the listed building may be that):
You have a right to be charged for your water on the basis of what you use. This means you have a right to have a meter installed free of charge, unless it's not practical or is unreasonably expensive to do this. Tenants also have the right to ask for a meter if their tenancy agreement is for six months or longer.
If you're considering changing to a water meter, you should contact your water company. You could do this by phone, or you may be able to apply on their website.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/water/paying-your-water-bill/changing-to-a-water-meter/#:~:text=You have a right to,for six months or longer.
Before long the ban on evictions without a reason will defang any potential retaliation to a degree, and change the balance of power in your tenancy relationship.
My suggestion is to do a bit of homework now as to where you stand (Shelter helpline, water company etc), and think about making a move once the new rental act is live. Check your Agreement to see if you are required to ask your LL to install a meter; that clause may be unenforceable. There should be a bit of law or CoP etc somewhere describing the right. It may take any heat off you if your water company are planning to impose universal metering (Southern have such a plan aiui).
If you are a good T, there's not really a downside in it for them. Changing tenants is expensive. As I say, once it's in for 6 months it's usually irreversible, so even if they are grumpy they should leave you alone.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=21&LAB=26&LIB=14&Reform=25&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
https://news.sky.com/story/electrocuted-beaten-and-left-to-die-the-horrors-of-bangladesh-s-death-squad-jails-13318685
How much does the government want to discourage future spending and encourage future state reliance ?
Well done @rcs1000
There always seems to be. I wonder when the last time there was not war somewhere in the world
Like this post if it is fixed for you.
Reply if it hasn’t.
So the water company fitted a meter but unfortunately fitted a faulty one and for some nine months we were recorded as using no water and were charged nothing. It was only when we were selling the house and the purchasers wanted a check that the fault was discovered.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with King Charles III on Monday and reportedly discussed the King making a public declaration in support of Canada's sovereignty.
Charles, who is the head of state of Canada as a British commonwealth nation, drew backlash in Canada for extending an invitation for a state visit to Donald Trump, while Trump is actively promoting the idea of annexing Canada and making it the "51st state."
...
Constitutionally, the King cannot take any political action in a nation unless formally asked to do so by the prime minister, so ministerial advice from Trudeau would be the first step in the King getting involved to defend Canada from Trump.
https://meidasnews.com/news/trudeau-asks-king-charles-to-declare-canadas-sovereignty-in-response-to-trump-threat
Odd sort of comment.
But ... pros and cons.
Guess which is more likely ?
What Rachel Reeves could do is lower the limit you can pay into a cash ISA. It has been mooted.
If your savings cannot beat inflation then, apart from a buffer for an emergency, what is the point of it.
It isn't.
Some may be on board because they support him but probably a lot are only on board because otherwise he'll destroy them. His threats to run MAGA candidates against incumbents are far worse now he has Musk/X fully onside.
I believe there may be a US public sector shutdown coming?
I’ve known nothing - literally nothing - but perfect cloudless skies ever since I returned
They discovered it when the next owners dug up the 2 foot thick (literally) 1950s concrete drive.
Adding it up, the water lost was a couple of Olympic swimming pools per annum.
(It was a really odd thing - the leaky pipe was feeding the kitchen extension and did so by first going up to the landing then down a wall and underground to pop up in the kitchen. Must have split under the slab. Our new extension has no such silly pipework.)
Whistle a happy tune.
(To some extent, at least. At the very least, I can report that my solar generation for February was 20% up on Feb 24.)
Clodius, maybe?
Milo?
Beats Lenin.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2er3ynvmlmo
Shinners not wanting weapons, apparently.
If Rayner was in a position where she could say what she thought of Trump's actions then Barnett wouldn't ask that question, she'd probably harangue her about something that was sub judice instead.
It doesn't advance the debate, but then that's not Barnett's purpose.
People worry as markets never go up in a straight line. Long term it’s a great driver of wealth but people panic when they see a paper loss.
What I think is certain is too much cash held is not generally a good thing.
Edit: apologies I see already mentioned.
Good to see the conservatives taking on the US administration
https://x.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1896878952649531748?t=7u1UZKt8dd3J7SFrOBQBOA&s=19
About time for a revival.
The rise of Arturo Ui, the gangster play we know.
I normally avoid Today, WATO, Any Questions, Question Time etc like the plague.
It has the advantage of being straight-forward.
And if Rayner can't come up with a more adroit way of getting that across and closing it down, that's her problem.
Other leaders are less circumspect.
..“Please fasten your seatbelts, we’re entering a turbulence zone, one could say” Polish prime minister Donald Tusk said today while opening a meeting of the Polish cabinet in Warsaw.
In his opening remarks, Tusk warned of “unprecedented” risks facing Europe, including “the biggest in the last few decades when it comes to security”. He urged ministers in his coalition government to put party differences aside as he expected the need to make “extraordinary” decisions.
“As you know, a decision was announced to suspend the US aid for Ukraine, and perhaps start lifting sanctions on Russia. We don’t have any reason to think these are just words,” he said.
He added that the reports he was getting from the Polish-Ukrainian border and the Polish logistics hub in Rzeszów-Jasionka, used for supplies for Ukraine, confirmed that the US decision to suspend military aid to Ukraine had been implemented.
“This puts Europe, Ukraine, Poland in a more difficult situation that we now need to face,” he said...
I’m sure Ben Houchen and other mayors will be on the phone offering to subsidise a factory in their region
There is no reason whatsoever the others cannot be saved elsewhere.
Of course I just offer my view on cash savings. Not financial advice. I have most of my cash savings, small as it is, fixed at over 5%.
Sadly this will go down as it renews.
In Trump, you need an emperor who combines both viciousness and stupidity.
Phocas is probably the best equivalent, although he is not a household name, but he did untold damage to the Empire he usurpred.
Ever since I got back from Singapore, it's been chilly mornings but glorious afternoons with wall to wall sunshine.
*Rumour says that the lady in question declared she was in the men’s toilet of the pub, on a certain occasion.
I just don’t see any other option.