Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Challenge for… Plaid Cymru – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,516
edited June 12 in General
The Challenge for… Plaid Cymru – politicalbetting.com

This is the second in a series looking at the challenges and opportunities for the 7 main Great Britain parties.  This time we will look at Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalists.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,689
    First! Again!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,165
    Unlike Truss!

    (For LOLs Farage should encourage her to defect and then turn her down when she gets there. I believe it’s called doing an “Albanian”)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,617
    Mr. B2, some people don't brag about coming first.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,617

    Unlike Truss!

    (For LOLs Farage should encourage her to defect and then turn her down when she gets there. I believe it’s called doing an “Albanian”)

    Reminds me of jokes about the two sides in World Wars having to take turns being lumbered with Italy. Although maybe that's an unfair comparison for the Italians.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,869
    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    edited June 12
    Interesting again thanks Gareth.
    In the Sennedd if Labour collapse enough i can see a Reform minority held in place by the rump Tories (not in any formal coalition or even confidence and supply but locking out Plaid/Lab) until polling supports collapsing it.
    The new set up could be very damaging to a forced minority administration
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,294
    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    The ONS are a joke, they are blaming lawyers for the fall in GDP, it is clearly the fault of Donald Trump and his tariffs.

    The Office for National Statistics, which collates the data, says that law firms and estate agents "fared badly" in April as house buyers rushed to complete deals ahead of changes to stamp duty.

    It also says car manufacturing "performed poorly".
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    edited June 12
    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    Great timing after yesterday and fix the foundations u turn
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,689
    Interesting stuff. Small typo in third last paragraph.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,689
    edited June 12

    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    The ONS are a joke, they are blaming lawyers for the fall in GDP, it is clearly the fault of Donald Trump and his tariffs.

    The Office for National Statistics, which collates the data, says that law firms and estate agents "fared badly" in April as house buyers rushed to complete deals ahead of changes to stamp duty.

    It also says car manufacturing "performed poorly".
    Sale of my mother's flat went through on the last day of March, with the whole chain desperate to conclude before the stamp duty change. That this, on a macro scale, affected the economic data is entirely plausible. Fault lies with government for tinkering about with the stamp duty change and setting these deadline dates in advance, rather than estate agents, obvs.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,869

    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    The ONS are a joke, they are blaming lawyers for the fall in GDP, it is clearly the fault of Donald Trump and his tariffs.

    The Office for National Statistics, which collates the data, says that law firms and estate agents "fared badly" in April as house buyers rushed to complete deals ahead of changes to stamp duty.

    It also says car manufacturing "performed poorly".
    How dare they blame our wonderful lawyers.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    edited June 12
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    The ONS are a joke, they are blaming lawyers for the fall in GDP, it is clearly the fault of Donald Trump and his tariffs.

    The Office for National Statistics, which collates the data, says that law firms and estate agents "fared badly" in April as house buyers rushed to complete deals ahead of changes to stamp duty.

    It also says car manufacturing "performed poorly".
    How dare they blame our wonderful lawyers.
    Lawyers not buying american flags, beef or swimming pool chicken has sunk many an economy
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,412

    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    edited June 12
    The GDP figures of course need to be seen against May and this month but short term very unhelpful to Labour as the casual observer sees -0.3%, worse than expected and concludes 'labour talk shit'
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,009
    Construction is still flat lining.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    edited June 12

    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.
    Yes, Reeves cant survive the year.
    Labour fourth in Wales in seats looks good to me next year
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 935

    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.
    Do you have evidence of this? Or are you looking at this? Insolvencies higher than 2008

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/company-insolvencies-december-2024/commentary-company-insolvency-statistics-december-2024

    Have suggested a number of times that insolvencies are *good*. They clear away zombie companies (left over from COVID) and those that only exist on taxpayers' subsidies. But if you want to keep propping up this type of company and the taxpayer backhanders they get (see PPP) then vote for Kemi.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,412
    Battlebus said:

    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.
    Do you have evidence of this? Or are you looking at this? Insolvencies higher than 2008

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/company-insolvencies-december-2024/commentary-company-insolvency-statistics-december-2024

    Have suggested a number of times that insolvencies are *good*. They clear away zombie companies (left over from COVID) and those that only exist on taxpayers' subsidies. But if you want to keep propping up this type of company and the taxpayer backhanders they get (see PPP) then vote for Kemi.
    My evidence is my eyes and ears. There has always been a divide between the statistic economy and the lived economy. Your point about businesses going pop being good - that's only true if its happening on a large scale if they are replaced by new businesses...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,623
    The LOTO was on R4 Today this morning about 7.35. She was terrible; fractious, negative, defensive, nothing to affirm about the greatness of Tory policy, deliberately and openly not answering questions, no gravitas or seriousness.

    I voted for them for 50 years, and I am not going back on this form.

    Doesn't look good.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,412
    algarkirk said:

    The LOTO was on R4 Today this morning about 7.35. She was terrible; fractious, negative, defensive, nothing to affirm about the greatness of Tory policy, deliberately and openly not answering questions, no gravitas or seriousness.

    I voted for them for 50 years, and I am not going back on this form.

    Doesn't look good.

    Listen to Stride yesterday as well. "We're right, you're wrong" only works when you are winning. When you got absolutely demolished it takes a special kind of person to declare moral victory.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,689
    Spot the almost subliminal flash of Rachel Reeves towards the end of Clarkson's Farm S4 E8!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,009

    Battlebus said:

    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.
    Do you have evidence of this? Or are you looking at this? Insolvencies higher than 2008

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/company-insolvencies-december-2024/commentary-company-insolvency-statistics-december-2024

    Have suggested a number of times that insolvencies are *good*. They clear away zombie companies (left over from COVID) and those that only exist on taxpayers' subsidies. But if you want to keep propping up this type of company and the taxpayer backhanders they get (see PPP) then vote for Kemi.
    My evidence is my eyes and ears. There has always been a divide between the statistic economy and the lived economy. Your point about businesses going pop being good - that's only true if its happening on a large scale if they are replaced by new businesses...
    The basic problem is that business decisions involving spending money seem to have dried up.

    Uncertainty is a word that’s being used a lot.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,805
    "RFK Jr. announces 8 appointees to CDC vaccine panel—they’re not good"

    https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/06/yep-rfk-jr-appoints-anti-vaccine-advocates-to-cdc-vaccine-panel/
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,287
    On topic, clearly the answer for Plaid is that they should seek to expand their activities into the Marches, with the eventual aim of forming a Greater Wales with an eastern plains area that lets them keep those transport links :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,186

    algarkirk said:

    The LOTO was on R4 Today this morning about 7.35. She was terrible; fractious, negative, defensive, nothing to affirm about the greatness of Tory policy, deliberately and openly not answering questions, no gravitas or seriousness.

    I voted for them for 50 years, and I am not going back on this form.

    Doesn't look good.

    Listen to Stride yesterday as well. "We're right, you're wrong" only works when you are winning. When you got absolutely demolished it takes a special kind of person to declare moral victory.
    One thing he very probably was right about is the likelihood of tax rises this autumn.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,186
    I've still to see any legal basis for Trump deploying federal troops domestically.

    President Trump has cited the chief of the LAPD when it comes to bypassing Gov. Newsom and deploying the National Guard.

    But Chief Jim MCDonnell tells me tonight, "We’re nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for the National Guard."

    https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1932984306089009210

    Normalising such illegality is extremely dangerous, with an administration that very clearly has authoritarian aspirations.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,689
    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LOTO was on R4 Today this morning about 7.35. She was terrible; fractious, negative, defensive, nothing to affirm about the greatness of Tory policy, deliberately and openly not answering questions, no gravitas or seriousness.

    I voted for them for 50 years, and I am not going back on this form.

    Doesn't look good.

    Listen to Stride yesterday as well. "We're right, you're wrong" only works when you are winning. When you got absolutely demolished it takes a special kind of person to declare moral victory.
    One thing he very probably was right about is the likelihood of tax rises this autumn.
    The first question put to Reeves on R4 just now, which she ducked, except to say that what she announced yesterday is already funded.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,956
    edited June 12
    IanB2 said:

    Spot the almost subliminal flash of Rachel Reeves towards the end of Clarkson's Farm S4 E8!

    I like Clarkson's Farm but that stuff really winds me up. Whatever you think of the IHT change, the motivation for it was to prevent people like Clarkson inflating land prices by using it as a tax dodge. Part of the reason someone like Kaleb struggles to buy a farm is because the agricultural returns are so small, so the breakeven point is sometimes centuries in the future.

    I'd forgive him if at the end of the next season he sells the land to Kaleb for a fair price for use as a farm (e.g. something like £0).
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,412
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    The LOTO was on R4 Today this morning about 7.35. She was terrible; fractious, negative, defensive, nothing to affirm about the greatness of Tory policy, deliberately and openly not answering questions, no gravitas or seriousness.

    I voted for them for 50 years, and I am not going back on this form.

    Doesn't look good.

    Listen to Stride yesterday as well. "We're right, you're wrong" only works when you are winning. When you got absolutely demolished it takes a special kind of person to declare moral victory.
    One thing he very probably was right about is the likelihood of tax rises this autumn.
    The first question put to Reeves on R4 just now, which she ducked, except to say that what she announced yesterday is already funded.
    What she announced yesterday will cost more money. They're not changing any of the structures whilst imposing further spending cuts in most areas. Which means more cash swallowed up by gargantuan administration waste, less money at the front line and thus higher emergency spending costs mopping up the crisis caused.

    This government is only better than the Tories in that they aren't malevolent banhammers like the Tories. Other than that they are as big a waste of skin.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,515
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable anymore.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,689
    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Spot the almost subliminal flash of Rachel Reeves towards the end of Clarkson's Farm S4 E8!

    I like Clarkson's Farm but that stuff really winds me up. Whatever you think of the IHT change, the motivation for it was to prevent people like Clarkson inflating land prices by using it as a tax dodge. Part of the reason someone like Kaleb struggles to buy a farm is because the agricultural returns are so small, so the breakeven point is sometimes centuries in the future.

    I'd forgive him if at the end of the next season he sells the land to Kaleb for a fair price for use as a farm (e.g. something like £0).
    All true. That Clarkson emerged as the public face of the farm IHT campaign is ironic.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,805
    A million Russian troops (and their allies...) killed, wounded, missing or captured.

    https://x.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1933021623499829513

    What Putin unleashed his evil, he did so on his own country, as well as on Ukraine.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,623
    I was thinking about the following the other day:

    The three most powerful men in the world, Putin, Xi and Trump, all had extraordinarily traumatic childhoods. Trump, though wealthy, had a sociopathic father who sent him to military school and for whom nothing was ever good enough. Xi endured some of the worst of the Cultural Revolution. Putin grew up with street gangs in the worst parts of Leningrad.

    And we wonder why the world is becoming more turbulent.

    I wonder if there is a way to stop damaged, destructive psychopaths from rising to the top of political systems? Certainly Presidential systems, which favour deluded, lying narcissists, are almost designed for them.

    It's an important issue which I don't think gets nearly enough attention.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,678
    Good morning

    Excellent piece @GarethoftheVale2

    My great grandfather walked nearly 3 miles to a quarry near St Asaph and back every day and life was hard

    At the turn of the last century my grandfather left North Wales to go to Manchester and hence why I was born in Greater Manchester

    In 1966 and 1971 our son and daughter were born in the St Asaph hospital which my great grandfather walked past every day but was a workhouse in his day

    All my children were schooled in Welsh and my daughter was able to go to our Welsh school on leaving primary school, but went with all her friends to the comprehensive school as Welsh became less important to her

    All our grandchildren are schooled in Welsh and our 22 granddaughter is a fluent Welsh speaker

    Welsh Labour and Plaid want all school children to be fluent in Welsh, and 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050 which simply will not happen

    My wife and I went to Cardiff from Colwyn Bay by train last month and it took seven and a half hours, so it is little wonder we view Cardiff as remote and have far more in common with Chester, Liverpool and Manchester

    As far as politics is concerned, Labour need to be defeated and as I have said I will vote Plaid if I consider they will beat Labour as I do not see independence as even a remote possibility but Labour need to understand they have taken Wales for granted for far too long and must pay the price
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,623
    Nigelb said:

    I've still to see any legal basis for Trump deploying federal troops domestically.

    President Trump has cited the chief of the LAPD when it comes to bypassing Gov. Newsom and deploying the National Guard.

    But Chief Jim MCDonnell tells me tonight, "We’re nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for the National Guard."

    https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1932984306089009210

    Normalising such illegality is extremely dangerous, with an administration that very clearly has authoritarian aspirations.

    From day one of the second term it has been obvious that the Rule of Law is the problem to be overcome, not the bedrock of the nation. The UK media is hardly bothering to report on the multitudes of illegalities. It has become normalised already.

    It has moved well beyong aspiration. The regime is in the firming up the implementation stage. It is already an authoritarian lawless state.

    For the one with executive power as long as you ignore the rule of law, you start with all the cards and 10 nil up. You are quick, law is slow. By the time it announces, you have moved several stages.

    A current stage is getting people used to internal military intervention.

    Can it be stopped? I think we shall know fairly soon. Certainly by the end of 2026. At the moment I think it can't.
  • vikvik Posts: 486
    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,176
    Fishing said:

    I was thinking about the following the other day:

    The three most powerful men in the world, Putin, Xi and Trump, all had extraordinarily traumatic childhoods. Trump, though wealthy, had a sociopathic father who sent him to military school and for whom nothing was ever good enough. Xi endured some of the worst of the Cultural Revolution. Putin grew up with street gangs in the worst parts of Leningrad.

    And we wonder why the world is becoming more turbulent.

    I wonder if there is a way to stop damaged, destructive psychopaths from rising to the top of political systems? Certainly Presidential systems, which favour deluded, lying narcissists, are almost designed for them.

    It's an important issue which I don't think gets nearly enough attention.

    Morning PB.

    It is extremely important. Part of the reason many people don't examine backgrounds in this way is social norms like the idea of "cod psychology", which is one of the most dangerously overused phrases about, sometimes by people who don't want to examine any dysfunctions in their own background too closely, either.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,771
    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    Worst. Government. Ever

    I believe this to be literally true
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,186

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms it's absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular...
    That's the point, though isn't it ?

    Your comparison with tuition fees - which sank a political party for a decade -just reinforces that.

    Unless and until there's a politician who can persuade us over 60s to make sacrifices for the generations below them, the demographics make it politically unviable.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,617
    Fishing said:

    I was thinking about the following the other day:

    The three most powerful men in the world, Putin, Xi and Trump, all had extraordinarily traumatic childhoods. Trump, though wealthy, had a sociopathic father who sent him to military school and for whom nothing was ever good enough. Xi endured some of the worst of the Cultural Revolution. Putin grew up with street gangs in the worst parts of Leningrad.

    And we wonder why the world is becoming more turbulent.

    I wonder if there is a way to stop damaged, destructive psychopaths from rising to the top of political systems? Certainly Presidential systems, which favour deluded, lying narcissists, are almost designed for them.

    It's an important issue which I don't think gets nearly enough attention.

    It's some years ago but I read a fascinating article which essentially said psychological disorders were sometimes bad for individuals but good for society. Bipolar creativity leading to great works of art, or psychopaths being fantastically capable (not necessarily moral) leaders.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,733
    edited June 12

    Good morning

    Excellent piece @GarethoftheVale2

    My great grandfather walked nearly 3 miles to a quarry near St Asaph and back every day and life was hard

    At the turn of the last century my grandfather left North Wales to go to Manchester and hence why I was born in Greater Manchester

    In 1966 and 1971 our son and daughter were born in the St Asaph hospital which my great grandfather walked past every day but was a workhouse in his day

    All my children were schooled in Welsh and my daughter was able to go to our Welsh school on leaving primary school, but went with all her friends to the comprehensive school as Welsh became less important to her

    All our grandchildren are schooled in Welsh and our 22 granddaughter is a fluent Welsh speaker

    Welsh Labour and Plaid want all school children to be fluent in Welsh, and 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050 which simply will not happen

    My wife and I went to Cardiff from Colwyn Bay by train last month and it took seven and a half hours, so it is little wonder we view Cardiff as remote and have far more in common with Chester, Liverpool and Manchester

    As far as politics is concerned, Labour need to be defeated and as I have said I will vote Plaid if I consider they will beat Labour as I do not see independence as even a remote possibility but Labour need to understand they have taken Wales for granted for far too long and must pay the price

    Very interesting, @Big_G_NorthWales . Thank-you.

    I trust that "22 granddaughter" is age, not No 22 Grand Daughter (if we count them Charlie Chan style). :wink:

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,678
    edited June 12
    vik said:

    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.

    Actually it is both, not least the job destroying budget but also bringing forward pre April economic activity to beat stamp duty hikes but of course exports to beats Trump's tariffs

    Furthermore Reeves was not blind to the consequences of her budget and trade woes
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,186
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I've still to see any legal basis for Trump deploying federal troops domestically.

    President Trump has cited the chief of the LAPD when it comes to bypassing Gov. Newsom and deploying the National Guard.

    But Chief Jim MCDonnell tells me tonight, "We’re nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for the National Guard."

    https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1932984306089009210

    Normalising such illegality is extremely dangerous, with an administration that very clearly has authoritarian aspirations.

    From day one of the second term it has been obvious that the Rule of Law is the problem to be overcome, not the bedrock of the nation. The UK media is hardly bothering to report on the multitudes of illegalities. It has become normalised already.

    It has moved well beyong aspiration. The regime is in the firming up the implementation stage. It is already an authoritarian lawless state.

    For the one with executive power as long as you ignore the rule of law, you start with all the cards and 10 nil up. You are quick, law is slow. By the time it announces, you have moved several stages.

    A current stage is getting people used to internal military intervention.

    Can it be stopped? I think we shall know fairly soon. Certainly by the end of 2026. At the moment I think it can't.
    I'm 50/50 on that.
    I agree that next year is quite probably the last chance.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,771

    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.
    But remember, the only reason they can afford to give eleventy gazillions pounds to Mauritius to take our property is because “they fixed the economy” and “filled the £22bn black hole” and everything is now brilliant, as we can all see and feel in our daily lives. Britain is booming. It’s obvious
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,186
    vik said:

    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.

    Doesn't really matter, though, does it ?
    No one will vote Labour just because it was Trump who screwed up their finances.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,186
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    Worst. Government. Ever

    I believe this to be literally true
    You do have a fatal attraction for hyperbole, though.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,678
    MattW said:

    Good morning

    Excellent piece @GarethoftheVale2

    My great grandfather walked nearly 3 miles to a quarry near St Asaph and back every day and life was hard

    At the turn of the last century my grandfather left North Wales to go to Manchester and hence why I was born in Greater Manchester

    In 1966 and 1971 our son and daughter were born in the St Asaph hospital which my great grandfather walked past every day but was a workhouse in his day

    All my children were schooled in Welsh and my daughter was able to go to our Welsh school on leaving primary school, but went with all her friends to the comprehensive school as Welsh became less important to her

    All our grandchildren are schooled in Welsh and our 22 granddaughter is a fluent Welsh speaker

    Welsh Labour and Plaid want all school children to be fluent in Welsh, and 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050 which simply will not happen

    My wife and I went to Cardiff from Colwyn Bay by train last month and it took seven and a half hours, so it is little wonder we view Cardiff as remote and have far more in common with Chester, Liverpool and Manchester

    As far as politics is concerned, Labour need to be defeated and as I have said I will vote Plaid if I consider they will beat Labour as I do not see independence as even a remote possibility but Labour need to understand they have taken Wales for granted for far too long and must pay the price

    Very interesting, @Big_G_NorthWales . Thank-you.

    I trust that "22 granddaughter" is age, not No 22 Grand Daughter (if we count them Charlie Chan style). :wink:

    Well spotted and no, we do not have 22 grandchildren !!!!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,515
    vik said:

    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.

    "Buck stops here"

    Especially when Reeves decided to increase the most destructive and awful of all taxes, raising taxes solely on employment and not unearned incomes.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,883
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    Worst. Government. Ever

    I believe this to be literally true
    You do have a fatal attraction for hyperbole, though.
    And voting for the worst government ever.
    Again.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,771
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    Worst. Government. Ever

    I believe this to be literally true
    You do have a fatal attraction for hyperbole, though.
    Yes but this time it is absolutely 100% total guaranteed copper-fastened FACT. It is probably the truest thing said in the history of politics since Truthola Gay Dropped Her Truth Bomb on Truthoshima
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,515
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms it's absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular...
    That's the point, though isn't it ?

    Your comparison with tuition fees - which sank a political party for a decade -just reinforces that.

    Unless and until there's a politician who can persuade us over 60s to make sacrifices for the generations below them, the demographics make it politically unviable.

    Labour won reelection twice after introducing tuition fees.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,186
    edited June 12
    Cracking header.

    But what is "Rvaleeform UK" that we're promised next time ?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    stodge said:

    The GDP figures of course need to be seen against May and this month but short term very unhelpful to Labour as the casual observer sees -0.3%, worse than expected and concludes 'labour talk shit'

    Just as when it was 0.7% growth a couple of months back, it was all “isn’t
    Reeves wonderful?”. Don’t remember much of that on here.

    Fixating on one month’s data which often proves inaccurate is the same as obsessing over polls with a one or two point move and building huge political changes from that.

    We can probably argue the economy remains broadly flat currently - stagnation isn’t a good look I would agree.
    That's very much what Labour tried to sell us, yes. Its all very flat with the trend currently downwards
    Polling is very stable lately. Reform high 20s to 30ish, Lab low 20s, Con high teens, LD mid teens, Greens 9 to 10

    29 22 19 14 9 is about right
  • vik said:

    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.

    Actually it is both, not least the job destroying budget but also bringing forward pre April economic activity to beat stamp duty hikes but of course exports to beats Trump's tariffs

    Furthermore Reeves was not blind to the consequences of her budget and trade woes
    We're now also going to get months of speculation as to which taxes are going to be increased in the Budget at the end of October.

    Which will act as a further disincentive to investing by business and more financial angst among individuals as to pensions planning.

    Reeves would do less damage if she increased income tax by 2% now and got it over with.
    It's amazing - "We spent July to November last year being pummelled by the Torygraph Tax Speculation Machine (tm) which killed our poll rating and made everyone hate us. Let's do that again!"
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,638
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I've still to see any legal basis for Trump deploying federal troops domestically.

    President Trump has cited the chief of the LAPD when it comes to bypassing Gov. Newsom and deploying the National Guard.

    But Chief Jim MCDonnell tells me tonight, "We’re nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for the National Guard."

    https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1932984306089009210

    Normalising such illegality is extremely dangerous, with an administration that very clearly has authoritarian aspirations.

    From day one of the second term it has been obvious that the Rule of Law is the problem to be overcome, not the bedrock of the nation. The UK media is hardly bothering to report on the multitudes of illegalities. It has become normalised already.

    It has moved well beyong aspiration. The regime is in the firming up the implementation stage. It is already an authoritarian lawless state.

    For the one with executive power as long as you ignore the rule of law, you start with all the cards and 10 nil up. You are quick, law is slow. By the time it announces, you have moved several stages.

    A current stage is getting people used to internal military intervention.

    Can it be stopped? I think we shall know fairly soon. Certainly by the end of 2026. At the moment I think it can't.
    If you open the border then you erase the distinction between internal and external and ultimately make 'internal' military intervention inevitable. Trump didn't create this situation.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,689
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. Budget yesterday - commentary verdicts seem to be somewhere around "Still on the road Speed Bumps Ahead".

    I listened to the main speeches yesterday, and I thought Reeves to be quite flat, and perhaps not political enough.

    Stride's response was imo not on planet earth - his reliance on comparisons with the fantasy numbers the Cons put forward at Election ("we would have ..."), and by which they lost 2/3 of their MPs, was embarrassing and risible, and his party is nowhere near a position to try and occupy the high ground.

    Reeves' reply was better, but still imo not enough of a stake through the heart on the Cons.

    On the budget, £39bn to help social housing over 10 years looks like something like 400-800k houses, or 40-80k per year average at 50-100k per unit assuming a partial contribution. Enough in quantity, and is it deloverable?

    It may help, and one hopes that social housing providers have the systems in place to enforce standards better - usually the houses have higher spec than equivalent developer houses for sale.

    I can't see too many landmines yet, except perhaps impact of police costs on Council Tax, but perhaps there is an upside to reminding communities that we pay for our own police. Usually in England about 2/3 of police funding is national, so there is room to shift that a little.

    My first political thought is that the Govt need to make sure they follow through on Council Tax reform alongside the Local Govt reorganisation, including making Council Tax properly proportional to house value, and abolishing Stamp Duty as the biscuit.

    My photo quota: police funding:

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025

    Outside of defence, capital investment has actually fallen on some measures.

    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britain-is-turning-into-a-national-health-state-as-lower-income-families-gain-most-from-spending-review/
    ..The £9.7 billion a year increase in capital spending between 2025-26 and 2029-30 includes an increase of £5.9 billion of financial transactions (primarily loans), with around two-fifths of the Warm Homes Plan now being funded by loans rather grants. Once these financial transactions are stripped out, the £7.4 billion a year increase in defence contrasts sharply with the £3.6 billion cut to real investment across all other departments...

    And 90% of the spending increases go to health.
    Yet Freedman's conclusion is "...the decision to keep health spending lower than the historical average is the single biggest political risk the government is taking".
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,569

    Fishing said:

    I was thinking about the following the other day:

    The three most powerful men in the world, Putin, Xi and Trump, all had extraordinarily traumatic childhoods. Trump, though wealthy, had a sociopathic father who sent him to military school and for whom nothing was ever good enough. Xi endured some of the worst of the Cultural Revolution. Putin grew up with street gangs in the worst parts of Leningrad.

    And we wonder why the world is becoming more turbulent.

    I wonder if there is a way to stop damaged, destructive psychopaths from rising to the top of political systems? Certainly Presidential systems, which favour deluded, lying narcissists, are almost designed for them.

    It's an important issue which I don't think gets nearly enough attention.

    Morning PB.

    It is extremely important. Part of the reason many people don't examine backgrounds in this way is social norms like the idea of "cod psychology", which is one of the most dangerously overused phrases about, sometimes by people who don't want to examine any dysfunctions in their own background too closely, either.
    I had an extremely contented childhood, with loving and supportive parents. I blame this for my chronic lack of ambition.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,623
    Fishing said:

    I was thinking about the following the other day:

    The three most powerful men in the world, Putin, Xi and Trump, all had extraordinarily traumatic childhoods. Trump, though wealthy, had a sociopathic father who sent him to military school and for whom nothing was ever good enough. Xi endured some of the worst of the Cultural Revolution. Putin grew up with street gangs in the worst parts of Leningrad.

    And we wonder why the world is becoming more turbulent.

    I wonder if there is a way to stop damaged, destructive psychopaths from rising to the top of political systems? Certainly Presidential systems, which favour deluded, lying narcissists, are almost designed for them.

    It's an important issue which I don't think gets nearly enough attention.

    In this respect our system is pretty good. With no possibility of a single lunatic populist appealing to a direct electorate in a national election for a single top post the greatest risk is averted.

    For the top job, the stages and filters in the UK are legion.

    Get to be MP
    Do well enough to be noticed and promoted
    Be elected leader
    Get 325+ seats in an election.

    Each stage is gigantically hard, and takes up your life. As well as weeding out Putin and Trump, it probably weeds out loads of good people.

    But, some will reply, 'Boris managed'. Yes, but he is not in the same league. He resigned over having a drinks party. His goverment obeyed court orders. Trump/Putin he was not.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,412
    vik said:

    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.

    External factors are truly massive. Nobody is denying that. But there is a reality as well that domestic politics sets the mood, and the mood set is grim.

    So many people are short of money and that means making choices about what to spend it on which means less cash circulating.

    The government could have done two things - cut the cost of housing and cut the cost of energy. The 1.5m new homes target is hopium with no route to recruit and train the construction workers needed nor domestically create the supplies needed. And energy bills remain pegged to the price of imported gas we increasingly use little of.

    They're frit and they're shit.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,711
    edited June 12
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    Worst. Government. Ever

    I believe this to be literally true
    For someone who claims never to get anything wrong when posting here, when it comes to real actions:

    a) Voted Labour
    b) Voted Brexit
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290

    vik said:

    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.

    "Buck stops here"

    Especially when Reeves decided to increase the most destructive and awful of all taxes, raising taxes solely on employment and not unearned incomes.
    The 'it started in America' bullshit won't wash this time any more than 2008. Its homegrown weakness being exposed yet again
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 935

    vik said:

    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.

    Actually it is both, not least the job destroying budget but also bringing forward pre April economic activity to beat stamp duty hikes but of course exports to beats Trump's tariffs

    Furthermore Reeves was not blind to the consequences of her budget and trade woes
    We're now also going to get months of speculation as to which taxes are going to be increased in the Budget at the end of October.

    Which will act as a further disincentive to investing by business and more financial angst among individuals as to pensions planning.

    Reeves would do less damage if she increased income tax by 2% now and got it over with.
    It's amazing - "We spent July to November last year being pummelled by the Torygraph Tax Speculation Machine (tm) which killed our poll rating and made everyone hate us. Let's do that again!"
    The only vote that counts etc .... 4 more years is a long time in politics and economics.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,678

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable
    I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

    We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

    The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

    Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

    Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

    The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

    The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,515

    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.
    Who could have ever thought that raising taxes on employment while leaving unearned incomes untaxed might not be the best way to manage an economy?
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 935
    "State pension itself isn’t"

    It is ....
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,053
    edited June 12
    algarkirk said:

    The LOTO was on R4 Today this morning about 7.35. She was terrible; fractious, negative, defensive, nothing to affirm about the greatness of Tory policy, deliberately and openly not answering questions, no gravitas or seriousness.

    I voted for them for 50 years, and I am not going back on this form.

    Doesn't look good.

    Whilst she wasn't great, I thought she came out of that better than the interviewer.

    Emma Barnett loves the sound of her own voice a little too much.

    Either I'm getting old or Today really has gone downhill.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,412
    Leon said:

    Feb 0.7
    Mar 0.2
    Apr -0.3

    Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.
    But remember, the only reason they can afford to give eleventy gazillions pounds to Mauritius to take our property is because “they fixed the economy” and “filled the £22bn black hole” and everything is now brilliant, as we can all see and feel in our daily lives. Britain is booming. It’s obvious
    No, they're paying a small part of the defence budget to lease the base, just as we pay other small parts of our defence budgets operating bases in Cyprus and elsewhere.

    I know that the Chagos issue excites you because it is Far Away and you're a travel writer. Its three parts of Fuck All in reality and you're being wilfully disingenuous the way you are presenting it.

    The bigger question is why we are footing the bill for a US Air Base in this way? I assume that we get something back for it, but with the manbaby now looking at AUKUS it comes back to whether or not we can trust this level of reliance on Murica.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,733
    edited June 12
    Nigelb said:

    Cracking header.

    But what is "Rvaleeform UK" that we're promised next time ?

    All schools will be playing the Reveille, instead of a ringing a bell, in the morning.

    And thanks for the interesting header, @GarethoftheVale2 .
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    edited June 12
    stodge said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable
    I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

    We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

    The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

    Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

    Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

    The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

    The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.
    Pension arrangements do need urgently looking at for the future. Hypothecation seems essential to me.
    Increasing SRA now when there aren't enough jobs to go round just pushes the cost into welfare imo. And then there are idiots like Torsten Bell who has previously talked about stopping people accessing private pensions earlier too, bringing minimum age closer to SRA. Absolute nonsense economics. Even though I am in the benefit system right now I'm looking at whether to take my limited private pension income early so I don't get locked out from it and trapped
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,685
    Great thread header, thanks @GarethoftheVale2
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,294
    Nigelb said:

    Cracking header.

    But what is "Rvaleeform UK" that we're promised next time ?

    That’s my typo.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,623

    algarkirk said:

    The LOTO was on R4 Today this morning about 7.35. She was terrible; fractious, negative, defensive, nothing to affirm about the greatness of Tory policy, deliberately and openly not answering questions, no gravitas or seriousness.

    I voted for them for 50 years, and I am not going back on this form.

    Doesn't look good.

    Whilst she wasn't great, I thought she came out of that better than the interviewer.

    Emma Barnett loves the sound of her own voice a little too much.

    Either I'm getting old or Today really has gone downhill.
    I agree with all that too, but Barnett gave the LOTO loads of space to answer questions, and got fractious herself because of the empty uselessness of what the LOTO was spouting. It's hard to entirely blame interviewers when the public pulpit they give those who want our votes is trashed by their rubbish.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,638

    Nigelb said:

    Cracking header.

    But what is "Rvaleeform UK" that we're promised next time ?

    That’s my typo.
    "Oh Rvaleeform, Rvaleeformed for you."
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,515
    stodge said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable
    I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

    We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

    The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

    Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

    Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

    The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

    The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.
    That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

    Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

    That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

    In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,569
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. Budget yesterday - commentary verdicts seem to be somewhere around "Still on the road Speed Bumps Ahead".

    I listened to the main speeches yesterday, and I thought Reeves to be quite flat, and perhaps not political enough.

    Stride's response was imo not on planet earth - his reliance on comparisons with the fantasy numbers the Cons put forward at Election ("we would have ..."), and by which they lost 2/3 of their MPs, was embarrassing and risible, and his party is nowhere near a position to try and occupy the high ground.

    Reeves' reply was better, but still imo not enough of a stake through the heart on the Cons.

    On the budget, £39bn to help social housing over 10 years looks like something like 400-800k houses, or 40-80k per year average at 50-100k per unit assuming a partial contribution. Enough in quantity, and is it deloverable?

    It may help, and one hopes that social housing providers have the systems in place to enforce standards better - usually the houses have higher spec than equivalent developer houses for sale.

    I can't see too many landmines yet, except perhaps impact of police costs on Council Tax, but perhaps there is an upside to reminding communities that we pay for our own police. Usually in England about 2/3 of police funding is national, so there is room to shift that a little.

    My first political thought is that the Govt need to make sure they follow through on Council Tax reform alongside the Local Govt reorganisation, including making Council Tax properly proportional to house value, and abolishing Stamp Duty as the biscuit.

    My photo quota: police funding:

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025

    Outside of defence, capital investment has actually fallen on some measures.

    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britain-is-turning-into-a-national-health-state-as-lower-income-families-gain-most-from-spending-review/
    ..The £9.7 billion a year increase in capital spending between 2025-26 and 2029-30 includes an increase of £5.9 billion of financial transactions (primarily loans), with around two-fifths of the Warm Homes Plan now being funded by loans rather grants. Once these financial transactions are stripped out, the £7.4 billion a year increase in defence contrasts sharply with the £3.6 billion cut to real investment across all other departments...

    And 90% of the spending increases go to health.
    Yet Freedman's conclusion is "...the decision to keep health spending lower than the historical average is the single biggest political risk the government is taking".
    We need radical measures to make people take more responsibility for their own health. Give people fitbits and tax credits for exercise. Massive public health campaigns around diet. We also need to think about end of life care. We are spending increasing chunks of GDP rectifying people's poor lifestyle choices and keeping people alive for a few extra months of low quality life, and starving areas like infrastructure and education where spending could make a far greater difference to our wealth and wellbeing. It's madness.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,412
    Leon said:

    Remember the Golden Rule

    Sooner or later, any decision made by Starmer’s Labour government turns out to be damaging for the UK

    This is now being applied to the Gibraltar deal. Falling apart under scrutiny

    What's the problem with the Gibraltar deal? They have fixed the border FUBAR so that people are able to cross it freely again as they need to. Gibraltar remains a BOT, the military facility remains untouched, and the people who voted in almost unanimity to not fuck their lives up get the fix they voted for.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,678

    stodge said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable
    I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

    We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

    The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

    Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

    Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

    The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

    The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.
    That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

    Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

    That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

    In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.
    The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

    Similarly with the NHS

    Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,515

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. Budget yesterday - commentary verdicts seem to be somewhere around "Still on the road Speed Bumps Ahead".

    I listened to the main speeches yesterday, and I thought Reeves to be quite flat, and perhaps not political enough.

    Stride's response was imo not on planet earth - his reliance on comparisons with the fantasy numbers the Cons put forward at Election ("we would have ..."), and by which they lost 2/3 of their MPs, was embarrassing and risible, and his party is nowhere near a position to try and occupy the high ground.

    Reeves' reply was better, but still imo not enough of a stake through the heart on the Cons.

    On the budget, £39bn to help social housing over 10 years looks like something like 400-800k houses, or 40-80k per year average at 50-100k per unit assuming a partial contribution. Enough in quantity, and is it deloverable?

    It may help, and one hopes that social housing providers have the systems in place to enforce standards better - usually the houses have higher spec than equivalent developer houses for sale.

    I can't see too many landmines yet, except perhaps impact of police costs on Council Tax, but perhaps there is an upside to reminding communities that we pay for our own police. Usually in England about 2/3 of police funding is national, so there is room to shift that a little.

    My first political thought is that the Govt need to make sure they follow through on Council Tax reform alongside the Local Govt reorganisation, including making Council Tax properly proportional to house value, and abolishing Stamp Duty as the biscuit.

    My photo quota: police funding:

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025

    Outside of defence, capital investment has actually fallen on some measures.

    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britain-is-turning-into-a-national-health-state-as-lower-income-families-gain-most-from-spending-review/
    ..The £9.7 billion a year increase in capital spending between 2025-26 and 2029-30 includes an increase of £5.9 billion of financial transactions (primarily loans), with around two-fifths of the Warm Homes Plan now being funded by loans rather grants. Once these financial transactions are stripped out, the £7.4 billion a year increase in defence contrasts sharply with the £3.6 billion cut to real investment across all other departments...

    And 90% of the spending increases go to health.
    Yet Freedman's conclusion is "...the decision to keep health spending lower than the historical average is the single biggest political risk the government is taking".
    We need radical measures to make people take more responsibility for their own health. Give people fitbits and tax credits for exercise. Massive public health campaigns around diet. We also need to think about end of life care. We are spending increasing chunks of GDP rectifying people's poor lifestyle choices and keeping people alive for a few extra months of low quality life, and starving areas like infrastructure and education where spending could make a far greater difference to our wealth and wellbeing. It's madness.
    Normalising assisted dying for end of life will improve matters tremendously, primarily for those who are suffering.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,771

    Leon said:

    Remember the Golden Rule

    Sooner or later, any decision made by Starmer’s Labour government turns out to be damaging for the UK

    This is now being applied to the Gibraltar deal. Falling apart under scrutiny

    What's the problem with the Gibraltar deal? They have fixed the border FUBAR so that people are able to cross it freely again as they need to. Gibraltar remains a BOT, the military facility remains untouched, and the people who voted in almost unanimity to not fuck their lives up get the fix they voted for.
    Loads of details about the passport arrangements now being revealed. Allegations on X such as: every British citizen entering Gibraltar will now have their passports checked by Spain and a stay in Gibraltar will count as a stay in Schenghen. As visiting the EU. The Spanish will control how and when the British visit British territory abroad

    Likewise some are claiming this will apply to British troops or sailors in the Navy
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,360
    vik said:

    Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

    It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

    Blame Trump & not Reeves.

    Halfwit, we live in the UK, it is fairly and squarely on reeves and Labour, what happened to that incredible deal they got out of Trump.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,678

    stodge said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable
    I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

    We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

    The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

    Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

    Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

    The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

    The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.
    Pension arrangements do need urgently looking at for the future. Hypothecation seems essential to me.
    Increasing SRA now when there aren't enough jobs to go round just pushes the cost into welfare imo. And then there are idiots like Torsten Bell who has previously talked about stopping people accessing private pensions earlier too, bringing minimum age closer to SRA. Absolute nonsense economics. Even though I am in the benefit system right now I'm looking at whether to take my limited private pension income early so I don't get locked out from it and trapped
    Hypothecation has been argued for before such as when Paddy Ashdown proposed a 1p income tax rise to fund education in 1992. Government Ministers dislike it because they want to decide where the money goes.

    When I retired, they hired someone literally half my age to do my job. That has to be the point - experience vs evolution. I couldn’t evolve the job because of my experience - someone new can.

    There are huge disincentives even with public sector pensions if you want to leave early. Big penalties encourage older staff to stay. Remove those and you might get more younger people in earlier.

    The other issue is the days of people staying at one job for decades are over - people move constantly for better base wages but if the pension aspect were attractive you might get more retention.

    It’s complex and nuanced as I often say.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,036
    Off topic...

    The hotel we are staying in has a Nespresso machine in every room. Can't complain at that.

    Well actually, yesterday someone did complain that there weren't any sachets of instant!

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    edited June 12

    stodge said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable
    I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

    We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

    The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

    Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

    Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

    The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

    The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.
    That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

    Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

    That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

    In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.
    The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

    Similarly with the NHS

    Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required
    But then you have to pay benefits to all those aged 67 to 70 who can't find work (or those younger who can't take the jobs they leave) we don't have the jobs to support work till 70

    Im all for means testing the NHS though
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,617
    edited June 12

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. Budget yesterday - commentary verdicts seem to be somewhere around "Still on the road Speed Bumps Ahead".

    I listened to the main speeches yesterday, and I thought Reeves to be quite flat, and perhaps not political enough.

    Stride's response was imo not on planet earth - his reliance on comparisons with the fantasy numbers the Cons put forward at Election ("we would have ..."), and by which they lost 2/3 of their MPs, was embarrassing and risible, and his party is nowhere near a position to try and occupy the high ground.

    Reeves' reply was better, but still imo not enough of a stake through the heart on the Cons.

    On the budget, £39bn to help social housing over 10 years looks like something like 400-800k houses, or 40-80k per year average at 50-100k per unit assuming a partial contribution. Enough in quantity, and is it deloverable?

    It may help, and one hopes that social housing providers have the systems in place to enforce standards better - usually the houses have higher spec than equivalent developer houses for sale.

    I can't see too many landmines yet, except perhaps impact of police costs on Council Tax, but perhaps there is an upside to reminding communities that we pay for our own police. Usually in England about 2/3 of police funding is national, so there is room to shift that a little.

    My first political thought is that the Govt need to make sure they follow through on Council Tax reform alongside the Local Govt reorganisation, including making Council Tax properly proportional to house value, and abolishing Stamp Duty as the biscuit.

    My photo quota: police funding:

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025

    Outside of defence, capital investment has actually fallen on some measures.

    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britain-is-turning-into-a-national-health-state-as-lower-income-families-gain-most-from-spending-review/
    ..The £9.7 billion a year increase in capital spending between 2025-26 and 2029-30 includes an increase of £5.9 billion of financial transactions (primarily loans), with around two-fifths of the Warm Homes Plan now being funded by loans rather grants. Once these financial transactions are stripped out, the £7.4 billion a year increase in defence contrasts sharply with the £3.6 billion cut to real investment across all other departments...

    And 90% of the spending increases go to health.
    Yet Freedman's conclusion is "...the decision to keep health spending lower than the historical average is the single biggest political risk the government is taking".
    We need radical measures to make people take more responsibility for their own health. Give people fitbits and tax credits for exercise. Massive public health campaigns around diet. We also need to think about end of life care. We are spending increasing chunks of GDP rectifying people's poor lifestyle choices and keeping people alive for a few extra months of low quality life, and starving areas like infrastructure and education where spending could make a far greater difference to our wealth and wellbeing. It's madness.
    Having the state monitor and reward/penalise people for exercise is very 1984. Or social credit China.

    I exercise every day except Sunday (mostly not for long, although the exercise bike is an hour). The idea I should receive taxpayer funds for it is not something that sits well at all. I also don't eat very much. I shouldn't get paid for that either.

    It may be more economical, but normalising state intrusion into personal habits and seeking to dictate these according to the whim of a government is not a sensible measure. Better an obese nation than one brute-forced into social obedience to the political agenda.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,360
    Battlebus said:

    "State pension itself isn’t"

    It is ....

    Exactly and at going tax rate so 43% in Scotland. People on here live in dreamland thinking pensioners earn gazillions and pay no taxes. FFS they pay the same taxes as any other person once above the paltry 12K allowance.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,883
    edited June 12

    algarkirk said:

    The LOTO was on R4 Today this morning about 7.35. She was terrible; fractious, negative, defensive, nothing to affirm about the greatness of Tory policy, deliberately and openly not answering questions, no gravitas or seriousness.

    I voted for them for 50 years, and I am not going back on this form.

    Doesn't look good.

    Whilst she wasn't great, I thought she came out of that better than the interviewer.

    Emma Barnett loves the sound of her own voice a little too much.

    Either I'm getting old or Today really has gone downhill.
    Both can be true..

    Today has reduced to a Gush or Gotcha format of which Barnett is a chief exponent (the Barnett formula!).
    Interestingly she was on with Nick Robinson with whom she is supposed to have a fractious relationship to the point of refusing to appear with him. They've obviously been to the headmaster's office and been told to shake hands and get on with it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,243
    Heath as cheery as ever:

    "Reeves is a terrible chancellor, perhaps the worst we have ever had. She should read Frederic Bastiat, the French economist. As he put it, “the state is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.” One day, perhaps in 2026 or 2027, reality will reestablish itself, Reeves will realise that she has no money, and she will panic. By then, it will be too late: we will already be toast."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/11/lazy-britain-chancellor-it-deserves-spending-uk-labour
  • AnthonyTAnthonyT Posts: 148
    edited June 12

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable anymore.
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms it's absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular...
    That's the point, though isn't it ?

    Your comparison with tuition fees - which sank a political party for a decade -just reinforces that.

    Unless and until there's a politician who can persuade us over 60s to make sacrifices for the generations below them, the demographics make it politically unviable.

    Four things are noticeable about this debate on here.

    1. The automatic misogyny. Yesterday @Foxy described it as the "Granny State". Of course, old women are the problem here. (Sarcasm alert). This is nonsense. Whatever the arguments for getting rid of the triple lock, charging NI on working pensioners and not giving benefits to those who are well off (all steps I favour), to claim as so many on here seem to do that if only there weren't any old people or old women things would be better reveals a nastiness which does those doing so no credit at all. The same applies to NHS spending which puts women's health low down its list of priorities.

    2. The assumption that nothing has been done for the young or the working population. Everyone seems to have forgotten the £96.9 billion spent on furlough during Covid. It was spent on people in jobs i.e. the young and the working. That money needs to be recouped and it is absurd to pretend that the working population who benefited can somehow or should somehow be exempt from this.

    3. People talk about tax on unearned assets - like homes. And yet when a proposal (however badly presented and explained it was) was presented stating that those with houses and savings should use those for their social care in old age, the fury on here and elsewhere from those insisting that this wealth should be preserved for inheritances was quite something. Assets for a rainy day should be used when the rain falls. Instead people wanted others to be taxed so that their own wealth could be preserved and passed on.

    4. Everyone is going to have to pay more to put the economy on an even keel after Covid and given the issues we now face. The idea that those in work can somehow be excused and the money come from somewhere else, some other group is for the birds
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,699

    Leon said:

    Remember the Golden Rule

    Sooner or later, any decision made by Starmer’s Labour government turns out to be damaging for the UK

    This is now being applied to the Gibraltar deal. Falling apart under scrutiny

    What's the problem with the Gibraltar deal? They have fixed the border FUBAR so that people are able to cross it freely again as they need to. Gibraltar remains a BOT, the military facility remains untouched, and the people who voted in almost unanimity to not fuck their lives up get the fix they voted for.
    There are two insurmountable problems for the Torygraph fanbois. The deal is with the EU. The deal is being made by Starmer. The rest is irrelevant. Ignore.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,290
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

    We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable
    I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

    We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

    The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

    Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

    Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

    The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

    The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.
    Pension arrangements do need urgently looking at for the future. Hypothecation seems essential to me.
    Increasing SRA now when there aren't enough jobs to go round just pushes the cost into welfare imo. And then there are idiots like Torsten Bell who has previously talked about stopping people accessing private pensions earlier too, bringing minimum age closer to SRA. Absolute nonsense economics. Even though I am in the benefit system right now I'm looking at whether to take my limited private pension income early so I don't get locked out from it and trapped
    Hypothecation has been argued for before such as when Paddy Ashdown proposed a 1p income tax rise to fund education in 1992. Government Ministers dislike it because they want to decide where the money goes.

    When I retired, they hired someone literally half my age to do my job. That has to be the point - experience vs evolution. I couldn’t evolve the job because of my experience - someone new can.

    There are huge disincentives even with public sector pensions if you want to leave early. Big penalties encourage older staff to stay. Remove those and you might get more younger people in earlier.

    The other issue is the days of people staying at one job for decades are over - people move constantly for better base wages but if the pension aspect were attractive you might get more retention.

    It’s complex and nuanced as I often say.
    Very complex, I agree.
    I just want to get my own situation sorted. 3 smallish DB preserved pensions and a DC to work out how to maximise
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,569

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. Budget yesterday - commentary verdicts seem to be somewhere around "Still on the road Speed Bumps Ahead".

    I listened to the main speeches yesterday, and I thought Reeves to be quite flat, and perhaps not political enough.

    Stride's response was imo not on planet earth - his reliance on comparisons with the fantasy numbers the Cons put forward at Election ("we would have ..."), and by which they lost 2/3 of their MPs, was embarrassing and risible, and his party is nowhere near a position to try and occupy the high ground.

    Reeves' reply was better, but still imo not enough of a stake through the heart on the Cons.

    On the budget, £39bn to help social housing over 10 years looks like something like 400-800k houses, or 40-80k per year average at 50-100k per unit assuming a partial contribution. Enough in quantity, and is it deloverable?

    It may help, and one hopes that social housing providers have the systems in place to enforce standards better - usually the houses have higher spec than equivalent developer houses for sale.

    I can't see too many landmines yet, except perhaps impact of police costs on Council Tax, but perhaps there is an upside to reminding communities that we pay for our own police. Usually in England about 2/3 of police funding is national, so there is room to shift that a little.

    My first political thought is that the Govt need to make sure they follow through on Council Tax reform alongside the Local Govt reorganisation, including making Council Tax properly proportional to house value, and abolishing Stamp Duty as the biscuit.

    My photo quota: police funding:

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025

    Outside of defence, capital investment has actually fallen on some measures.

    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britain-is-turning-into-a-national-health-state-as-lower-income-families-gain-most-from-spending-review/
    ..The £9.7 billion a year increase in capital spending between 2025-26 and 2029-30 includes an increase of £5.9 billion of financial transactions (primarily loans), with around two-fifths of the Warm Homes Plan now being funded by loans rather grants. Once these financial transactions are stripped out, the £7.4 billion a year increase in defence contrasts sharply with the £3.6 billion cut to real investment across all other departments...

    And 90% of the spending increases go to health.
    Yet Freedman's conclusion is "...the decision to keep health spending lower than the historical average is the single biggest political risk the government is taking".
    We need radical measures to make people take more responsibility for their own health. Give people fitbits and tax credits for exercise. Massive public health campaigns around diet. We also need to think about end of life care. We are spending increasing chunks of GDP rectifying people's poor lifestyle choices and keeping people alive for a few extra months of low quality life, and starving areas like infrastructure and education where spending could make a far greater difference to our wealth and wellbeing. It's madness.
    Having the state monitor and reward/penalise people for exercise is very 1984. Or social credit China.

    I exercise every day except Sunday (mostly not for long, although the exercise bike is an hour). The idea I should receive taxpayer funds for it is not something that sits well at all. I also don't eat very much. I shouldn't get paid for that either.

    It may be more economical, but normalising state intrusion into personal habits and seeking to dictate these according to the whim of a government is not a sensible measure. Better an obese nation than one brute-forced into social obedience to the political agenda.
    I share your concerns, but if we want a taxpayer funded heath system free at the point of delivery (as I do) then we have to do something to prevent it swallowing up an ever greater share of our income. I'd rather have some gentle behavioural nudges than start rationing healthcare. Nobody should be forced to do anything, obviously. In a world of big data I think it's pointless to invoke 1984, we are living in that world aleady.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,360
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

    These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

    We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

    The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

    I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.
    We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

    Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.
    Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.
    In real terms it's absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular...
    That's the point, though isn't it ?

    Your comparison with tuition fees - which sank a political party for a decade -just reinforces that.

    Unless and until there's a politician who can persuade us over 60s to make sacrifices for the generations below them, the demographics make it politically unviable.

    They need to cut benefits for the slackers generations , not the pensioners who hav etoiled for 50 years to get a paltry pension. Absolutely NO benefits or accomodation for any immigrant as well, they can pay their own way as well.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,522
    Taz said:

    Well done Reeves.

    Economy shrinks by 0.3% in April.

    Keep spending !!

    https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1933042500106699196?s=61

    There’s a lot of noise and revisions to monthly data which is one of the reasons why we used to focus on quarterly data but that is not a good number, offsetting most of the unexpected growth in Q1.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,883
    tlg86 said:
    'Those ghastly Islamist gangsters Hamas have attacked our ghastly Islamist gangsters!'
  • AnthonyTAnthonyT Posts: 148

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. Budget yesterday - commentary verdicts seem to be somewhere around "Still on the road Speed Bumps Ahead".

    I listened to the main speeches yesterday, and I thought Reeves to be quite flat, and perhaps not political enough.

    Stride's response was imo not on planet earth - his reliance on comparisons with the fantasy numbers the Cons put forward at Election ("we would have ..."), and by which they lost 2/3 of their MPs, was embarrassing and risible, and his party is nowhere near a position to try and occupy the high ground.

    Reeves' reply was better, but still imo not enough of a stake through the heart on the Cons.

    On the budget, £39bn to help social housing over 10 years looks like something like 400-800k houses, or 40-80k per year average at 50-100k per unit assuming a partial contribution. Enough in quantity, and is it deloverable?

    It may help, and one hopes that social housing providers have the systems in place to enforce standards better - usually the houses have higher spec than equivalent developer houses for sale.

    I can't see too many landmines yet, except perhaps impact of police costs on Council Tax, but perhaps there is an upside to reminding communities that we pay for our own police. Usually in England about 2/3 of police funding is national, so there is room to shift that a little.

    My first political thought is that the Govt need to make sure they follow through on Council Tax reform alongside the Local Govt reorganisation, including making Council Tax properly proportional to house value, and abolishing Stamp Duty as the biscuit.

    My photo quota: police funding:

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2025

    Outside of defence, capital investment has actually fallen on some measures.

    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/britain-is-turning-into-a-national-health-state-as-lower-income-families-gain-most-from-spending-review/
    ..The £9.7 billion a year increase in capital spending between 2025-26 and 2029-30 includes an increase of £5.9 billion of financial transactions (primarily loans), with around two-fifths of the Warm Homes Plan now being funded by loans rather grants. Once these financial transactions are stripped out, the £7.4 billion a year increase in defence contrasts sharply with the £3.6 billion cut to real investment across all other departments...

    And 90% of the spending increases go to health.
    Yet Freedman's conclusion is "...the decision to keep health spending lower than the historical average is the single biggest political risk the government is taking".
    We need radical measures to make people take more responsibility for their own health. Give people fitbits and tax credits for exercise. Massive public health campaigns around diet. We also need to think about end of life care. We are spending increasing chunks of GDP rectifying people's poor lifestyle choices and keeping people alive for a few extra months of low quality life, and starving areas like infrastructure and education where spending could make a far greater difference to our wealth and wellbeing. It's madness.
    Normalising assisted dying for end of life will improve matters tremendously, primarily for those who are suffering.
    You haven't read the Bill have you? Pain is not a reason to get AD under the Bill.
Sign In or Register to comment.