On the decline of AirBNB prices in prime London and whether it's due to non dom tax changes.
It's that, but also surging crime
A friend of mine went to Shepherd's Bush Green this week, and there are signs saying "it is wrong to sexually assault or harrass women, please don't do it"
Maybe they've always been there? Maybe this is new. But Sweet Jesus F C
X is also full of stories of asylum seekers being busted for sex crimes. It is remarkable this isn't a bigger story
What would be the correlation between non-dom taxes and AirB'n'B rates? A drastic fall in demand for high-priced escorts maybe?
Yes, I don't believe this is primarily non-doms, it is the image of London as dangerous, hostile and overpriced
It's toxic
It's also not true. Someone at my client's office yesterday was saying that Baker Street was rife with phone thieves and it really, really isn't. If you want to see thieves go to Barcelona or Rome.
For years I've strolled around London (inc the centre) with my phone tucked in my back pocket visible to all. I'm not even remotely careful with it. I sometimes even leave it unattended on a table for a short period. It's never been touched.
I had mine stolen last year about 30 yards from my flat. Plucked from my hands by a kid on a bike. There is a phone theft in London every six minutes
I guarantee that if you carry on doing what you do, your phone will be stolen
Actually phones in pockets are reasonably safe in the streets, where the MO of phone thieves is to snatch them from the hands of people using them. It is in bars and on the tube where pickpockets operate.
I frequently notice people's phones sticking out of their back pockets when standing on escalators in London for example, and often think it would be easy for someone to snatch them.
On the decline of AirBNB prices in prime London and whether it's due to non dom tax changes.
It's that, but also surging crime
A friend of mine went to Shepherd's Bush Green this week, and there are signs saying "it is wrong to sexually assault or harrass women, please don't do it"
Maybe they've always been there? Maybe this is new. But Sweet Jesus F C
X is also full of stories of asylum seekers being busted for sex crimes. It is remarkable this isn't a bigger story
What would be the correlation between non-dom taxes and AirB'n'B rates? A drastic fall in demand for high-priced escorts maybe?
Yes, I don't believe this is primarily non-doms, it is the image of London as dangerous, hostile and overpriced
It's toxic
Is it just an 'image' or is there some reality behind it? I'm referring to the 'dangerous and hostile' bit.
The UK is the rape capital of the western world
"Rape offences have increased dramatically in England and Wales since 2012/13 when there were 16,038 offences. After this year, rape offences increased substantially, reaching a high of 69,973 offences in the 2021/22 reporting year, before falling slightly to 68,949 in 2022/23, and to 67,928 in 2023/24. When 2023/24 is compared with the 2002/03 reporting year, there was an almost sixfold increase in the number of rape offences recorded by the police in England and Wales. "
I'm trying to think of a reason why. Perhaps you can
Have they switched to telephone assessment?
So... a six fold increase in reported rapes, in 20 years, is...... funny?
No.
But it may be positive.
Your position appears to be that there are far more rapes than there used to be, and I daresay you will dogwhistle that this is down to certain elements in society.
I'd argue that's rubbish. If more women are coming forward to report rapes because they now feel that they will be listened to, and that the police, courts and society will be more sympathetic to them, then that's a positive. The more rapists who are prosecuted, the better (leaving aside the frequent difficulties of prosecuting rape cases...).
The above chart from 2012 is instructive. If, as you seem to 'think', the number of reported rapes in a country is symptomatic of the quality of that country, then Sweden must be an absolute hellhole, and Muslim Indonesia a brilliant place for women.
Much of that sixfold increase will be simply women reporting more rapes, not that rapes are massively more common. And there will also be a certain amount of backlog because of reporting for historic crimes, because women are only just feeling free to come forward. And you know what? Whilst the crimes are horrific, I'd argue the fact they're coming forward is a positive.
If you want the number of rapes reduced, then perhaps dropping the 'alpha man' viewpoints and becoming a little more understanding about women might help. Dare I say, become a little more woke?
And remember: when people say 'rape', many think of a woman pulled off the street and raped. That happens, but is rare. Most rapes occur between people who know each other, at least a little. And sadly, there is a massive amount of it happening in extended families.
The Tories could bail Starmer out, but I wonder what they'd want in return.
They've already given him their demands - reduce welfare bill, more disabled into work, no tax rises in next budget. And they want it confirmed at the despatch box
I'd say that's nearly meaningless. Kemi always says she has no policies because she can't see the detail of the finances, so how can she suddenly see enough credibly to make these demands?
- "Reduce welfare bill", without policies, is performative flogging.
- "More disabled into work" is her admission that the Work Capacity Assessments her party put in place were a f*ck*p.
- "No tax rises" is nonsense, since circumstances are changing daily in the big, wide world and she keeps demanding that things be done that require more expenditure eg defence, despite their never having been done under the Government where she was a minister, and her party leaving oodles of unfunded promises lying around.
Can't say it is Kemi's fault she is useless. She knows it but chose to accept the position thrust upon her - presumably by the jokers that have decamped to Reform. Conspiracy or c***-up
The Tories could bail Starmer out, but I wonder what they'd want in return.
They've already given him their demands - reduce welfare bill, more disabled into work, no tax rises in next budget. And they want it confirmed at the despatch box
How very inspiring.
Reform are a complete nonsense and rather obscure the picture, but surely there's some sort of thought going on somewhere on the right.
I suspect the Tories want it to pass, with their help, so Starmer takes the Tory shill hit and if they can recover they don't have to do the cuts themselves (but they ain't recovering to governing level so its moot)
It's such a nothing of a bill though.
Imagine 5% cuts all round to welfare - the Tories would love to vote for that on Labour's watch
What we need is much sharper of course - 50%. And see how the land lies then.
Benefits should not be cut for those in genuine need but should not be paid to those who have no need
I know it is my hobby horse but why are millionaires getting free NHS and the state pension ?
And the triple lock and WFP
100% agree with this - but as I keep pointing out, if it is in the legislation it gets paid. And to change the legislation, you need to have the votes which is where we are now.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
No more than currently. And they wouldn't have spent the last year in a futile effort to find a millimeter of wiggle room within their self imposed straightjacket.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Instead of running th country down and having no real,policies and plans they could have come in with a slightly smaller majority if they had tested plans and said “things have been mismanaged but we are going to make things good, the country can be great and the economy back on its feet so don’t worry” but the left’s obsession with yah boo politics had to trump sense. I have absolutely no sympathy for Reeves or Starmer whatsoever.
What is even more worrying is that if Starmer was toppled we likely get Rayner and you only have to watch her performance at PMQs this week to see her pathetic and mindless inability to be a grown up or articulate ideas. Can you imagine her fuckwittery on the world stage? Would be beyond embarrassing.
I would love to meet the editor of the Today programme and ask why they think the people who listen to Today want clips of Charlie XCX (who I like when it’s not 6am unless she was actually here) blasting out.
I know everyone at the Beeb is terribly excited that is Glastonburymas but not everyone shares the obsession. It has to be said it’s not just at this time of year, whoever is in the chair at Today really has some need to drop music in most days - leave it to Radio 1 and 2 maybe.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
We are still led by donkeys, just different ones, but those dickheads don't seem so bothered about that these days. Much more important to do stunts about the total irrelevance that is Liz Truss.
Jonathan Pie is disappointing in that respect, he has basically given up doing YouTube videos, when there is infinite source material. The odd one about the Orange One, but that is it.
Why has Jonathan Pie stopped doing YouTube videos?
He talks about things on this recent interview with Andrew Gold. I haven't watched the whole 75 mins because I find him slightly annoying — Pie, not Gold.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
Yes, even though it’s against what I believe in at least it would be something that mattered and changed things.
It’s a reflection of politicians seemingly being so concerned about getting into power without really working out what to do when they have power.
It goes back to Blair getting that majority in 97 where he could have come in and completely ripped up the country. Fundamentally changed it into a Scandinavian style tax and spend UK (again not my bag) and it would have been actually “doing something” with the power he had but it seemed like he was too concerned with not doing anything that might result in them damaging themselves at the next election.
What’s the point in winning elections, especially with huge majorities, if you don’t really turn the country in the direction you believe is best and just Fanny around at the edges to ensure staying in office.
I understand Starmer’s offer to the welfare rebel MPs is to protect PIP payments for all existing claimants forever. There would be no detriment from the reforms for existing claimants. This would shave circa £2bn from the reform savings by 2029. I an pretty clear that with the other reforms I describe below this will persuade enough rebels to back the remaining reforms in next Tuesday’s vote.
There will also be “grandfathering” of the disability top up universal credit for existing claimants. So again no detriment to existing claimants. My estimate is this would shave another billion pounds or so from the reform savings by 2029.
Finally, and importantly, the rebels - led by Treasury committee chair Meg Hillier - have secured agreement that the Stephen Timms review of how to assess entitlement to disability benefits will be a co-production with disability rights groups. This is seen by rebel MPs as a major concession.
My assumption is that enough rebel MPs will now drop their opposition to the reforms and Starmer will win on Tuesday. But make no mistake, this is another substantial government u-turn
Court cases incoming from new claimants. Equality act, discrimination etc etc. Multi billion pound u turn that might not survive contact with the court system. Why didn't he just pull it and start on proper reform?! Oh well, damage done now if it even gets through
I genuinely can’t see how that survives a court challenge.
Surely it is quite normal to change things for new claimants/recipients but leave existing recipients wuth grandfather rights
How would paying everyone who retires from next April £4000 a year less in state pension get on? They are telling some 2026 disabled they are not entitled to the support of identical 2025 disabled under the same benefit
That's absolutely standard.
Final pension pensions being grandfathered to career average.
Or defined pensions being grandfathered to defined contribution ones.
Or age for qualification rising while those whom are already qualified stay so, grandfathered.
Grandfathering existing rights is well established in the law and doesn't violate the discrimination act as you are not discriminating against anyone based on any protected characteristics, so long as all new claimants are treated equally.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
Yes, even though it’s against what I believe in at least it would be something that mattered and changed things.
It’s a reflection of politicians seemingly being so concerned about getting into power without really working out what to do when they have power.
It goes back to Blair getting that majority in 97 where he could have come in and completely ripped up the country. Fundamentally changed it into a Scandinavian style tax and spend UK (again not my bag) and it would have been actually “doing something” with the power he had but it seemed like he was too concerned with not doing anything that might result in them damaging themselves at the next election.
What’s the point in winning elections, especially with huge majorities, if you don’t really turn the country in the direction you believe is best and just Fanny around at the edges to ensure staying in office.
Apart from the salary, perks, pension, prominence, power, patronage, and eventual seat in the Lords and place in the history books, you mean?
Is anyone going to stop this country going bankrupt?
It's the space the Conservatives should be playing in, but Kemi isn't interested.
The Liberal Democrats may try. Not sure how far they'll get.
Eh? Kemi has been hammering welfare costs, she even brought it up at the PM's pompous garbage 'Nato statement' or whatever the bollocks that was, and then did a speech on it later that day. I recognise her deficiencies as a leader but failing to take advantage of the gap left by Labour's crumbling and Reform's giveaways isn't one of them.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
Yes, even though it’s against what I believe in at least it would be something that mattered and changed things.
It’s a reflection of politicians seemingly being so concerned about getting into power without really working out what to do when they have power.
It goes back to Blair getting that majority in 97 where he could have come in and completely ripped up the country. Fundamentally changed it into a Scandinavian style tax and spend UK (again not my bag) and it would have been actually “doing something” with the power he had but it seemed like he was too concerned with not doing anything that might result in them damaging themselves at the next election.
What’s the point in winning elections, especially with huge majorities, if you don’t really turn the country in the direction you believe is best and just Fanny around at the edges to ensure staying in office.
Apart from the salary, perks, pension, prominence, power, patronage, and eventual seat in the Lords and place in the history books, you mean?
Or in Blair's case, a multi-million pound foundation, bankrolled by someone who happens to own a firm that did very well out of his time in Government.
I would love to meet the editor of the Today programme and ask why they think the people who listen to Today want clips of Charlie XCX (who I like when it’s not 6am unless she was actually here) blasting out.
I know everyone at the Beeb is terribly excited that is Glastonburymas but not everyone shares the obsession. It has to be said it’s not just at this time of year, whoever is in the chair at Today really has some need to drop music in most days - leave it to Radio 1 and 2 maybe.
Radio 1 does not want the 50- and 60-year-old listeners who go to Glastonbury. Radio 4, maybe.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
Yes, even though it’s against what I believe in at least it would be something that mattered and changed things.
It’s a reflection of politicians seemingly being so concerned about getting into power without really working out what to do when they have power.
It goes back to Blair getting that majority in 97 where he could have come in and completely ripped up the country. Fundamentally changed it into a Scandinavian style tax and spend UK (again not my bag) and it would have been actually “doing something” with the power he had but it seemed like he was too concerned with not doing anything that might result in them damaging themselves at the next election.
What’s the point in winning elections, especially with huge majorities, if you don’t really turn the country in the direction you believe is best and just Fanny around at the edges to ensure staying in office.
Apart from the salary, perks, pension, prominence, power, patronage, and eventual seat in the Lords and place in the history books, you mean?
Blair and Brown could have been, arguably should have been more radical. But memories are short and hazy, they replaced the dilapidated infrastructure, sorted out the NHS waiting lists and introduced sure start, iif it hadn't been for the bankers crashing the world economy in 2008, Labour are likely to have won again in 2010.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
I think it would be politically feasible to change it to a cumulative triple lock rather than one based on annual uprating - ie the pension increases at the rate of the highest increase of the three compared to now. That's quite a substantial change and one sufficiently complicated few will get excited.
Is anyone going to stop this country going bankrupt?
It's the space the Conservatives should be playing in, but Kemi isn't interested.
The Liberal Democrats may try. Not sure how far they'll get.
Unfortunately the choices are unpalatable, so no-one will. A slow ratcheting up of tax at each budget is all that will happen, which is even worse than one big move up. Gilts at just under 5% means almost no room for manoeuvre if spending can’t be meaningfully cut.
What are the options on the economy that bail us out? The world economy starts booming and we get some benefit? Possible if the Ukraine war ends and energy prices drop? Or if Trump somehow delivers an economic boom in the US? Pretty unlikely…
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
I think it would be politically feasible to change it to a cumulative triple lock rather than one based on annual uprating - ie the pension increases at the rate of the highest increase of the three compared to now. That's quite a substantial change and one sufficiently complicated few will get excited.
I wonder how much changing it to the average of the three indicators would save? A change that would seem fair and few would understand the finances.
We are still led by donkeys, just different ones, but those dickheads don't seem so bothered about that these days. Much more important to do stunts about the total irrelevance that is Liz Truss.
Jonathan Pie is disappointing in that respect, he has basically given up doing YouTube videos, when there is infinite source material. The odd one about the Orange One, but that is it.
Why has Jonathan Pie stopped doing YouTube videos?
He talks about things on this recent interview with Andrew Gold. I haven't watched the whole 75 mins because I find him slightly annoying — Pie, not Gold.
I understand Starmer’s offer to the welfare rebel MPs is to protect PIP payments for all existing claimants forever. There would be no detriment from the reforms for existing claimants. This would shave circa £2bn from the reform savings by 2029. I an pretty clear that with the other reforms I describe below this will persuade enough rebels to back the remaining reforms in next Tuesday’s vote.
There will also be “grandfathering” of the disability top up universal credit for existing claimants. So again no detriment to existing claimants. My estimate is this would shave another billion pounds or so from the reform savings by 2029.
Finally, and importantly, the rebels - led by Treasury committee chair Meg Hillier - have secured agreement that the Stephen Timms review of how to assess entitlement to disability benefits will be a co-production with disability rights groups. This is seen by rebel MPs as a major concession.
My assumption is that enough rebel MPs will now drop their opposition to the reforms and Starmer will win on Tuesday. But make no mistake, this is another substantial government u-turn
It's a little depressing that one of the biggest majorities for Labour of all time (I think Blair still beats him) has produced.... what?
They could be busy transforming the UK from top to bottom if they had confidence in themselves - and instead they're bickering about the details of PIP.
I don't know. It just makes me quite sad that after a year in government the only things I remember them for is mucking about with national insurance in a way that pleased no-one, this current PIP mess and messing with winter fuel allowance then backtracking.
Its not confidence that is lacking, it is doing the forward planning and having the talent to implement it. Blair did lots of planning, same with Cameron / Coalition (the Orange Book Lib Dems had thought hard about some sensible things).
I think there's a lot of that; but I also think leading a country is becoming increasingly difficult in the Internet age. In a way, I wonder if Starmer would have been a better PM in 1997, and Blair in 2024. You really need the ability not just to develop policy, but to develop the messaging of that policy.
Personally, I think trolls and bot farms are a significant factor in this problem.
I wonder if it's also the triumph of the professional political class since the 1990s, who, as professional operators, are great at dominating the next news cycle, enforcing message discipline and ruling through a grid, but, with no experience outside politics, are useless at trivialities like finance, economics, diplomacy, social policy, etc.
You may be right but SKS doesn't seem to be an example of that.
You're right. Good point.
With SKS you get the worst of both worlds - a man with no useful experience of the major problems this country faces, which are mostly economic. And insofar as he DOES have experience it's of the wrong type - a human rights barrister when we need to clamp down on immigration, etc. But also a man who is profoundly uncharismatic and pretty useless politically.
So unsurprisingly his poll numbers hare testing record lows, at any rate if you except Liz Truss.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
I think it would be politically feasible to change it to a cumulative triple lock rather than one based on annual uprating - ie the pension increases at the rate of the highest increase of the three compared to now. That's quite a substantial change and one sufficiently complicated few will get excited.
That wouldn't work as when one gets ahead, then the next catches up while the other freezes, we'd get squeals about frozen pensions.
An average of the 3 would be far more sustainable and fairer.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
I think it would be politically feasible to change it to a cumulative triple lock rather than one based on annual uprating - ie the pension increases at the rate of the highest increase of the three compared to now. That's quite a substantial change and one sufficiently complicated few will get excited.
I wonder how much changing it to the average of the three indicators would save? A change that would seem fair and few would understand the finances.
No-one understands the triple lock now. For a start, they seem to have missed that it was suspended just a couple of years ago. For another, its abolition will not save money until some future year when whatever replaces it (a double lock, perhaps) produces a lower increase.
I'm fairly convinced concern over the triple lock must have been started by Russian bots (and the accompanying term boomer pensioners does not sound very British either).
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
I think it would be politically feasible to change it to a cumulative triple lock rather than one based on annual uprating - ie the pension increases at the rate of the highest increase of the three compared to now. That's quite a substantial change and one sufficiently complicated few will get excited.
I wonder how much changing it to the average of the three indicators would save? A change that would seem fair and few would understand the finances.
Hmm a nice LD style approach to politics - smoke and mirrors - or to be more blunt, dishonest.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
I think it would be politically feasible to change it to a cumulative triple lock rather than one based on annual uprating - ie the pension increases at the rate of the highest increase of the three compared to now. That's quite a substantial change and one sufficiently complicated few will get excited.
I wonder how much changing it to the average of the three indicators would save? A change that would seem fair and few would understand the finances.
No-one understands the triple lock now. For a start, they seem to have missed that it was suspended just a couple of years ago. For another, its abolition will not save money until some future year when whatever replaces it (a double lock, perhaps) produces a lower increase.
I'm fairly convinced concern over the triple lock must have been started by Russian bots (and the accompanying term boomer pensioners does not sound very British either).
It matters because the assumptions are plugged into the government’s forward financial modelling, and therefore changing the formula saves money on paper right away.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Instead of running th country down and having no real,policies and plans they could have come in with a slightly smaller majority if they had tested plans and said “things have been mismanaged but we are going to make things good, the country can be great and the economy back on its feet so don’t worry” but the left’s obsession with yah boo politics had to trump sense. I have absolutely no sympathy for Reeves or Starmer whatsoever.
What is even more worrying is that if Starmer was toppled we likely get Rayner and you only have to watch her performance at PMQs this week to see her pathetic and mindless inability to be a grown up or articulate ideas. Can you imagine her fuckwittery on the world stage? Would be beyond embarrassing.
I would love to meet the editor of the Today programme and ask why they think the people who listen to Today want clips of Charlie XCX (who I like when it’s not 6am unless she was actually here) blasting out.
I know everyone at the Beeb is terribly excited that is Glastonburymas but not everyone shares the obsession. It has to be said it’s not just at this time of year, whoever is in the chair at Today really has some need to drop music in most days - leave it to Radio 1 and 2 maybe.
Radio 1 does not want the 50- and 60-year-old listeners who go to Glastonbury. Radio 4, maybe.
Older people wanting new music is 6 Music Older people wanting nostalgia is Radio 2.
I would love to meet the editor of the Today programme and ask why they think the people who listen to Today want clips of Charlie XCX (who I like when it’s not 6am unless she was actually here) blasting out.
I know everyone at the Beeb is terribly excited that is Glastonburymas but not everyone shares the obsession. It has to be said it’s not just at this time of year, whoever is in the chair at Today really has some need to drop music in most days - leave it to Radio 1 and 2 maybe.
Radio 1 does not want the 50- and 60-year-old listeners who go to Glastonbury. Radio 4, maybe.
Older people wanting new music is 6 Music Older people wanting nostalgia is Radio 2.
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
I don't disagree ( other than I still plan to be around in 10 -15 years).
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The only way the triple-lock ends is if it's announced to switch to a double-lock at some distance in the future, say 10-15 years hence, like the retirement age increases.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
I don't disagree ( other than I still plan to be around in 10 -15 years).
Still drawing that pension at the cost of the rest of us. Have you no conscience?
She must be in despair. Neither her boss nor her backbench colleagues have been remotely helpful at all. She must be thinking what the blazes is the point?
She has only herself to blame. Captured by Treasury think within hours of entering office she has never recovered imho.
Brown is her political hero and yet she doesn't seem to have learnt diddly squat from him about how to mix the politics with the number crunching.
Yep - she played a poor hand incredibly (beyond) badly.
I joke about my policy of 3p on income tax and a treating the winter fuel allowance as a small extra for low paid pensioners but it still would have solved the immediate problems in a less painful way than the Employer NI change.
And there is still the insanity of council tax being based on 1989 prices to fix...
Raising Income Tax by 3p (or anything at all) would have required Starmer to throw the MIng vase at the wall - and be showered in shards of his political credibility.
The Ming Vase strategy is probably why they are where they are now. Their belief that all they had to do was not scare the horses and not do anything radical and they would win because everyone hated the Tories meant that they didn’t actually have to think.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Actually, that would have been fine had she used that to bung 3p on income tax and abolish the triple lock.
They might even be polling slightly better.
Yes, even though it’s against what I believe in at least it would be something that mattered and changed things.
It’s a reflection of politicians seemingly being so concerned about getting into power without really working out what to do when they have power.
It goes back to Blair getting that majority in 97 where he could have come in and completely ripped up the country. Fundamentally changed it into a Scandinavian style tax and spend UK (again not my bag) and it would have been actually “doing something” with the power he had but it seemed like he was too concerned with not doing anything that might result in them damaging themselves at the next election.
What’s the point in winning elections, especially with huge majorities, if you don’t really turn the country in the direction you believe is best and just Fanny around at the edges to ensure staying in office.
Apart from the salary, perks, pension, prominence, power, patronage, and eventual seat in the Lords and place in the history books, you mean?
Blair and Brown could have been, arguably should have been more radical. But memories are short and hazy, they replaced the dilapidated infrastructure, sorted out the NHS waiting lists and introduced sure start, iif it hadn't been for the bankers crashing the world economy in 2008, Labour are likely to have won again in 2010.
Would this be the same Blair and Brown who the minute they arrived in office took the regulartory powers away from the Bank of England and replaced it with a tripartite regulatory system that failed the first time it was faced with a serious financial crisis?
Comments
Ref 32.92%
LD 29.35%
Lab 24.36%
Con 6.11%
Grn 5.41%
Yorkshire 1.07%
TUSC 0.79%
Ref 1789
LD 1595
Lab 1324
Con 332
Grn 294
Yorkshire 58
TUSC 43
➡️ RFM: 40.6% (New)
🌳 CON: 37.0% (+6.1)
🔶 LDM: 7.5% (-6.8)
🏘️ WI: 6.45% (-25.4)
🌹 LAB: 6.4% (-16.4)
🌍 GRN: 1.9% (New)
Reform GAIN from Wickford Independents.
Changes w/ 2024.
Essex shaping up to be a good fight
But it may be positive.
Your position appears to be that there are far more rapes than there used to be, and I daresay you will dogwhistle that this is down to certain elements in society.
I'd argue that's rubbish. If more women are coming forward to report rapes because they now feel that they will be listened to, and that the police, courts and society will be more sympathetic to them, then that's a positive. The more rapists who are prosecuted, the better (leaving aside the frequent difficulties of prosecuting rape cases...).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#/media/File:Rape_rate_per_100,000_-_country_comparison_-_United_Nations_2012.png
The above chart from 2012 is instructive. If, as you seem to 'think', the number of reported rapes in a country is symptomatic of the quality of that country, then Sweden must be an absolute hellhole, and Muslim Indonesia a brilliant place for women.
Much of that sixfold increase will be simply women reporting more rapes, not that rapes are massively more common. And there will also be a certain amount of backlog because of reporting for historic crimes, because women are only just feeling free to come forward. And you know what? Whilst the crimes are horrific, I'd argue the fact they're coming forward is a positive.
If you want the number of rapes reduced, then perhaps dropping the 'alpha man' viewpoints and becoming a little more understanding about women might help. Dare I say, become a little more woke?
And remember: when people say 'rape', many think of a woman pulled off the street and raped. That happens, but is rare. Most rapes occur between people who know each other, at least a little. And sadly, there is a massive amount of it happening in extended families.
LIBDEM HOLD
Crediton Lawrence Ward, MID DEVON DC;
LDM, 540, 64.90%
Refuk, 226, 27.16%
Lab, 66, 7.93%
And they wouldn't have spent the last year in a futile effort to find a millimeter of wiggle room within their self imposed straightjacket.
They weren’t being tested and challenged on new ideas, running out potential policies that might make a difference and having them argued, ripped apart, tested. This bred lazy thinking and no solid plan that integrated ideas about growth, innovation, tightening up etc.
Reeves just came in honking like a goose about the Tories being bad, then honking about black holes and that the country is in dire shit.
Instead of running th country down and having no real,policies and plans they could have come in with a slightly smaller majority if they had tested plans and said “things have been mismanaged but we are going to make things good, the country can be great and the economy back on its feet so don’t worry” but the left’s obsession with yah boo politics had to trump sense. I have absolutely no sympathy for Reeves or Starmer whatsoever.
What is even more worrying is that if Starmer was toppled we likely get Rayner and you only have to watch her performance at PMQs this week to see her pathetic and mindless inability to be a grown up or articulate ideas. Can you imagine her fuckwittery on the world stage? Would be beyond embarrassing.
I know everyone at the Beeb is terribly excited that is Glastonburymas but not everyone shares the obsession. It has to be said it’s not just at this time of year, whoever is in the chair at Today really has some need to drop music in most days - leave it to Radio 1 and 2 maybe.
They might even be polling slightly better.
The Liberal Democrats may try. Not sure how far they'll get.
It’s a reflection of politicians seemingly being so concerned about getting into power without really working out what to do when they have power.
It goes back to Blair getting that majority in 97 where he could have come in and completely ripped up the country. Fundamentally changed it into a Scandinavian style tax and spend UK (again not my bag) and it would have been actually “doing something” with the power he had but it seemed like he was too concerned with not doing anything that might result in them damaging themselves at the next election.
What’s the point in winning elections, especially with huge majorities, if you don’t really turn the country in the direction you believe is best and just Fanny around at the edges to ensure staying in office.
Final pension pensions being grandfathered to career average.
Or defined pensions being grandfathered to defined contribution ones.
Or age for qualification rising while those whom are already qualified stay so, grandfathered.
Grandfathering existing rights is well established in the law and doesn't violate the discrimination act as you are not discriminating against anyone based on any protected characteristics, so long as all new claimants are treated equally.
Current pensioners won't be affected (they'll be dead) and the ones who would have got it by and large won't be voting on it yet. Might still be a WASPI style fight at some point, but winnable.
It's still worth doing because it helps OBR/IFS/IMF forecasts, and sends a good signal to the markets.
What are the options on the economy that bail us out? The world economy starts booming and we get some benefit? Possible if the Ukraine war ends and energy prices drop? Or if Trump somehow delivers an economic boom in the US? Pretty unlikely…
With SKS you get the worst of both worlds - a man with no useful experience of the major problems this country faces, which are mostly economic. And insofar as he DOES have experience it's of the wrong type - a human rights barrister when we need to clamp down on immigration, etc. But also a man who is profoundly uncharismatic and pretty useless politically.
So unsurprisingly his poll numbers hare testing record lows, at any rate if you except Liz Truss.
An average of the 3 would be far more sustainable and fairer.
I'm fairly convinced concern over the triple lock must have been started by Russian bots (and the accompanying term boomer pensioners does not sound very British either).
NEW THREAD
Older people wanting nostalgia is Radio 2.