Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Control Alt Delete – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,551
edited June 30 in General
Control Alt Delete – politicalbetting.com

Without passing a control test you lose faith government will be able to improve your life or public services, control borders, tackle climate change, keep country safe. Control underpins it all; people want to know the government is able to do what they elected them to do

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 19,396
    First again
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,097
    edited June 30
    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    They are decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,596
    Morning all,

    Going to be sweltering today. But at least I'm not playing tennis later.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    FPT
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.

    I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.

    Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
    It's approaching the top 5% now but the top 2% pay 39% (and rising) of all income tax. So, yes, it's significant if a good chunk of them decide not to work more, not work much at all, or work overseas. And the message it sends to entrepreneurs both at home, and looking to invest here from overseas, is that Britain is open to and interested in rewarding success - unlocking energy & growth.

    Sustainable growth depending on median earners and median businesses sounds nice and fair, but it's not especially true, even if they are the mode in number.

    Fundamentally, growth is driven by wealth creators and a economic environment that rewards success. We have two quasi-socialist policies that are starting to be venerated: one, in the public sector, is the PM salary cap - meaning they can no longer pay market rates to hire the best people in major public sector bodies - and, two, the 100k cliff edge from 2009 (62k in today's prices) means your Jeff Bezos and can be taxed until the pips squeak.

    Both are making us poorer.
    But it's not even that 2% or 5% affected by the cliff edge, as has been shown to you. Jeff Bezos is not affected by it, as he earns rather more than it.

    And I agree that the the proportion of all income tax that is paid by the top 5% is absolutely ridiculous. But given the top rate of tax is only 45%, and 40% from £50k to £125k, that's a function of enormous income inequality, not punitive tax rates.

    And it's not about being "nice and fair". 90% of the UK population earn less than £70k - if you want to generate meaningful growth, you're going to have to bring along some of them as well simply by weight of numbers. We see exactly this attitude around London, which the economy is now so reliant on but also why we've generated such massive regional inequalities.
    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/02/a-tale-of-twelve-cities-the-perplexing-underperformance-of-britains-second-tier/
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,679
    edited June 30
    Would you really want Rayner, Lammy, Reeves and all the other socialist idiots acting like they had a majority of 174?

    The country can just about cope with their incompetence and spite as long as they are timid. We'll stagnate or gradually decline for a few years and then maybe choose more wisely next time.

    A bolder Labour government would probably bankrupt us all - see Venezuela or Cuba.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,667
    We've got 4 more years of this - his first year anniversary is coming up this week.

    Goodness knows where we'll be by the end of that.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,097
    edited June 30
    FPT: Another RefUK incident - a (Cheshire) Councillor arrested. (Do many Councillors get arrested?). From one of the founders of Britain Elects:

    Reform's Winsford borough councillor Mandy Clare who equates the 🏳️‍🌈 flag to child abuse was today escorted from Winsford Pride, resisted, and ended up arrested and in the back of a police van following intimidation and attacks on drag acts. Video src:
    https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1236025951259547

    https://x.com/BNHWalker/status/1939004101607501954

    She was protesting at a Pride day, and caused enough trouble that she ended up getting herself arrested. In those circs, people with a public position just leave when the coppers tell them to go. I wonder what the Daily T podcast will say about this, or if she will make a JD Vance speech as a martyr?

    Her habit is to label herself as 'principles over politics'.

    A peripatetic and different history for a RefUK Councillor - since 2019 she has gone Labour -> Socialist Labour Party (Scargill's lot)-> Party Of Women (Posie Parker & co) -> Reform. That's as many affiliations as Lee Anderson, including his Independent phase.

    In addition to sorting out the world-beating vetting system which did not work, someone in RefUK needs to roll out training about practical politics for office holders, including where "the mark" is that should not be overstepped.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,667
    I've spent so much time around the Big4 that I initially read the header as: Control Alt Deloitte.

    Which is a fairly neat summation of how many C-Suite leaders in major corporates and public bodies prefer to deal with a problem.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,667
    Fishing said:

    Would you really want Rayner, Lammy, Reeves and all the other socialist idiots acting like they had a majority of 174?

    The country can just about cope with their incompetence and spite as long as they are timid. We'll stagnate or gradually decline for a few years and then maybe choose more wisely next time.

    A bolder Labour government would probably bankrupt us all - see Venezuela or Cuba.

    It's a wise point because the most likely alternative to Starmer is Rayner, and we all would - how can put this - not exactly be in for a fun ride.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,667

    Morning all,

    Going to be sweltering today. But at least I'm not playing tennis later.

    Does anyone on this site work?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,130

    Morning all,

    Going to be sweltering today. But at least I'm not playing tennis later.

    Does anyone on this site work?
    Quick, hide .. the boss is about

  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,377
    MattW said:

    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.

    You really shouldn’t be walking dogs in this weather unless you do it early, like now. It’s better for them not to be walked than walk in heat.

    But if you do walk it at lunchtime please do it barefoot and in a fur coat so you can share it’s joy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,667
    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,675

    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj

    Tony Blair is forever cursed in making sensible suggestions that no-one wants to listen to.

    I have mixed feelings about his time in government (some actions great, some good, some very damaging) but he’s head and shoulders above the current political generation.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,487

    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj

    Got to say you can't fault the logic - businesses have been tracking projects and spending real (or at least monthly) basis for decades, the Government really should move to the 1990s.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,409
    Fishing said:

    Would you really want Rayner, Lammy, Reeves and all the other socialist idiots acting like they had a majority of 174?

    The country can just about cope with their incompetence and spite as long as they are timid. We'll stagnate or gradually decline for a few years and then maybe choose more wisely next time.

    A bolder Labour government would probably bankrupt us all - see Venezuela or Cuba.

    Excellent header - the politicians have yielded power to The Process State. Strangely, this means that increasing numbers of people think the politicians are powerless.

    The paradox of democracy - in Switzerland the voters have control. To the point they can remove laws against the wishes of the political class. And create laws, likewise.

    Yet the result is *more* stable. Because they have power, the voters of Switzerland have to be responsible.

    Given a Swiss setup, the first thing., in the U.K., would be a visit to the IMF. Then people would learn
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,077
    eek said:

    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj

    Got to say you can't fault the logic - businesses have been tracking projects and spending real (or at least monthly) basis for decades, the Government really should move to the 1990s.
    I think my local town council is still in the 1660s...

    ( https://www.cambournetowncouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/115/2025/06/Agenda-Pack-30th-June-2025.pdf )

    I heard lots of juicy rumours about this yesterday. It doesn't sound as though there was much actual corruption; more that what started as a tiny village council grew much larger, and the people and processes did not. Unfortunately when you are running a council with a seven-figure budget, those processes are important...
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,377
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.

    I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.

    Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
    It's approaching the top 5% now but the top 2% pay 39% (and rising) of all income tax. So, yes, it's significant if a good chunk of them decide not to work more, not work much at all, or work overseas. And the message it sends to entrepreneurs both at home, and looking to invest here from overseas, is that Britain is open to and interested in rewarding success - unlocking energy & growth.

    Sustainable growth depending on median earners and median businesses sounds nice and fair, but it's not especially true, even if they are the mode in number.

    Fundamentally, growth is driven by wealth creators and a economic environment that rewards success. We have two quasi-socialist policies that are starting to be venerated: one, in the public sector, is the PM salary cap - meaning they can no longer pay market rates to hire the best people in major public sector bodies - and, two, the 100k cliff edge from 2009 (62k in today's prices) means your Jeff Bezos and can be taxed until the pips squeak.

    Both are making us poorer.
    But it's not even that 2% or 5% affected by the cliff edge, as has been shown to you. Jeff Bezos is not affected by it, as he earns rather more than it.

    And I agree that the the proportion of all income tax that is paid by the top 5% is absolutely ridiculous. But given the top rate of tax is only 45%, and 40% from £50k to £125k, that's a function of enormous income inequality, not punitive tax rates.

    And it's not about being "nice and fair". 90% of the UK population earn less than £70k - if you want to generate meaningful growth, you're going to have to bring along some of them as well simply by weight of numbers. We see exactly this attitude around London, which the economy is now so reliant on but also why we've generated such massive regional inequalities.
    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/02/a-tale-of-twelve-cities-the-perplexing-underperformance-of-britains-second-tier/
    The regional mayors still don't have enough authority and tax / spending / borrowing powers.

    to be blunt - until Manchester and Birmingham can raise money to build the metro / underground rail / tram systems and other things they desperately need we will remain a low growth centralised country.

    Has any serious organisation looked into the effects/benefits/downsides of changing the UK tax system to a multi-levelled system that more federal nations have?

    Obviously you have the Swiss model with National, cantonal and communal taxes and Switzerland functions rather well. I’m aware that there are big structural and cultural differences between the UK and Switzerland but it would be interesting if any studies looked at the UK on the same model.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,705
    edited June 30
    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,059
    Is the dog's name Keir?


  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,488

    eek said:

    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj

    Got to say you can't fault the logic - businesses have been tracking projects and spending real (or at least monthly) basis for decades, the Government really should move to the 1990s.
    I think my local town council is still in the 1660s...

    ( https://www.cambournetowncouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/115/2025/06/Agenda-Pack-30th-June-2025.pdf )

    I heard lots of juicy rumours about this yesterday. It doesn't sound as though there was much actual corruption; more that what started as a tiny village council grew much larger, and the people and processes did not. Unfortunately when you are running a council with a seven-figure budget, those processes are important...
    I glanced at the audit report when you first posted the link and there did not seem to be too much there – more a set of unticked boxes that might allow fraud rather than actual brown envelopes.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,691
    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    Let me guess, do you read the daily mail or the telegraph?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302
    MattW said:

    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.

    How the hell do you cross a poodle with a ship?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,488
    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,691

    MattW said:

    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.

    How the hell do you cross a poodle with a ship?
    was it a frigate?

    I'll get my coat...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302

    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    Let me guess, do you read the daily mail or the telegraph?
    When you have to fire pointless little barbs in the direction of DavidL, you are shilling for a government that is in deep, deep trouble.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,377

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,510
    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    I think that, if only 1 in 5 of the population were utterly delusional, we would be doing quite well. I fear that we would be lucky to find 1 person in 5 who was not utterly delusional.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,691

    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    Let me guess, do you read the daily mail or the telegraph?
    When you have to fire pointless little barbs in the direction of DavidL, you are shilling for a government that is in deep, deep trouble.
    We know who you shill for though...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,865

    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj

    Tony Blair is forever cursed in making sensible suggestions that no-one wants to listen to.

    I have mixed feelings about his time in government (some actions great, some good, some very damaging) but he’s head and shoulders above the current political generation.
    If his institute had started with the sensible stuff like this half a decade ago, rather than trying to actually make policy, then it might have had far more actual influence on government.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302
    edited June 30

    Fishing said:

    Would you really want Rayner, Lammy, Reeves and all the other socialist idiots acting like they had a majority of 174?

    The country can just about cope with their incompetence and spite as long as they are timid. We'll stagnate or gradually decline for a few years and then maybe choose more wisely next time.

    A bolder Labour government would probably bankrupt us all - see Venezuela or Cuba.

    Excellent header - the politicians have yielded power to The Process State. Strangely, this means that increasing numbers of people think the politicians are powerless.

    The paradox of democracy - in Switzerland the voters have control. To the point they can remove laws against the wishes of the political class. And create laws, likewise.

    Yet the result is *more* stable. Because they have power, the voters of Switzerland have to be responsible.

    Given a Swiss setup, the first thing., in the U.K., would be a visit to the IMF. Then people would learn
    Surely, isn't it a case that because the voters have power, the politicians of Switzerland have to be responsible. You wouldn't have had Brexit because they wouldn't have felt impotent to power.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,510

    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    Let me guess, do you read the daily mail or the telegraph?
    When you have to fire pointless little barbs in the direction of DavidL, you are shilling for a government that is in deep, deep trouble.
    We know who you shill for though...
    Do we?

    MarqueeMark seems to be anti-everyone (except the Ukrainians) recently.

    He was one of the most reliably pro-Tory party posters for a long time, but now I find it harder to predict his posts.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,487
    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I suspect prosecuting BV will be problematic as the reporting of what he did doesn’t seem to quite match the reality.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,865

    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    Let me guess, do you read the daily mail or the telegraph?
    When you have to fire pointless little barbs in the direction of DavidL, you are shilling for a government that is in deep, deep trouble.
    We know who you shill for though...
    Do we?

    MarqueeMark seems to be anti-everyone (except the Ukrainians) recently.

    He was one of the most reliably pro-Tory party posters for a long time, but now I find it harder to predict his posts.
    He's always had a streak of the sensible, which he retains.
    It's probably just that the Tory party lost whatever sensible it had some years back.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,703
    Good morning, everyone. Already high 20s (inside).

    The joys of a south-facing office. Been doing my best to crack on with today's assignment so I can flee early.

    On-topic: it is weird how weak the Government appears. Starmer has a crushing majority. But it feels feeble.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302

    I've spent so much time around the Big4 that I initially read the header as: Control Alt Deloitte.

    Which is a fairly neat summation of how many C-Suite leaders in major corporates and public bodies prefer to deal with a problem.

    Wouldn't that be Control All Deloitte?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,077

    eek said:

    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj

    Got to say you can't fault the logic - businesses have been tracking projects and spending real (or at least monthly) basis for decades, the Government really should move to the 1990s.
    I think my local town council is still in the 1660s...

    ( https://www.cambournetowncouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/115/2025/06/Agenda-Pack-30th-June-2025.pdf )

    I heard lots of juicy rumours about this yesterday. It doesn't sound as though there was much actual corruption; more that what started as a tiny village council grew much larger, and the people and processes did not. Unfortunately when you are running a council with a seven-figure budget, those processes are important...
    I glanced at the audit report when you first posted the link and there did not seem to be too much there – more a set of unticked boxes that might allow fraud rather than actual brown envelopes.
    Indeed. And I know 'process' is a dirty word on PB. But some processes are valid, and there is great potential for fraud, especially at a small scale. That does not mean fraud has occurred; just that it would be rather easy for fraud to occur. And we cannot know, because the proper processes were not used.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,817
    Morning all :)

    There have been very few instances in my adult life when I've genuinely felt the Government had lost control in the sense of events running the Government rather than the Government running events to the extent you really didn't know or couldn't see what the Government response was going to be.

    I'd offer the early stages of Covid as an example. From further back, "Black" or "White" Wednesday in 1992 and further back from that the Three Day Week. September 11th 2001 might be another but there aren't many.

    They were different - that was more about responding to an unexpected (or even expected) crisis.

    This seems to be a more significant sense of malaise or ennui about the state of the country and how the Govenrment is or isn't responding to that. I think one of the expectations many had from last July was after years of chaos and drift under the Conservatives, Labour would come in and be focussed and ready to implement solutions. Yes, some of the solutions might not work but it was better than the inertia which characterised the end of the Conservative years.

    The party was over, the bill was on the table and we now had to pay (knowing the cards were maxed out and we dind't have much cash). I suspect many knew there would be some kind of pain even if we all hoped it would impact more on the other guy.

    What we have (unfortunately and I say this as someone who genuinely wished the new Government well rather than laying into them before Starmer's car was halfway back from the Palace) is, oddly enough, more of the same. It's as though Rishi never left - the same inertia, the same drift, the same failure, despite an enormous Parliamentary majority, to do the big bold things many wanted. The echoes of Blair's first term are all too clear.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,865
    At least 2 firefighters killed by active shooter near Idaho wildfire, police say. Shooter still actively firing. Total number of victims not yet clear
    https://x.com/BNONews/status/1939468958718935150
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,691
    edited June 30

    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    Let me guess, do you read the daily mail or the telegraph?
    When you have to fire pointless little barbs in the direction of DavidL, you are shilling for a government that is in deep, deep trouble.
    We know who you shill for though...
    I really don't think you do. My inclinations are still largely to the Right, but not of Reform.

    I'm enjoying having no responsibility for the current governmen shit show. You?
    I have no responsibility either, as I am not a labour party supporter, but I am just making the point that percentage opinion polls are made up of swaithes of people who have varying views, most of them swayed by crap that comes from our media, mainly the Mail which everyday since the election has had an anti-labour/Starmer headline and the Telegraph which has no problem publishing lies to suit its owner. A lot of people are doing ok at the moment, so their views will be part of the percentages referred to. Snide comments about medication etc also show his possible shills.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,191
    edited June 30
    Nigelb said:

    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj

    Tony Blair is forever cursed in making sensible suggestions that no-one wants to listen to.

    I have mixed feelings about his time in government (some actions great, some good, some very damaging) but he’s head and shoulders above the current political generation.
    If his institute had started with the sensible stuff like this half a decade ago, rather than trying to actually make policy, then it might have had far more actual influence on government.
    Tbf Tony initially may have been drunk with the success of his stint as Middle East peace envoy.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,077
    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    Surely that depends on how you define "under control"? For instance, my interactions with the state are minimal, and things seem the same-old same-old. If anything, my local GP practice seems to have improved (from a poor level). On a day-to-day level, things may seem fine and under control, even if the direction on a broader (strategic?) scale is poor.

    Many (most?) people are only concerned with the small world that surrounds them, not the broader picture.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,191
    Nigelb said:

    At least 2 firefighters killed by active shooter near Idaho wildfire, police say. Shooter still actively firing. Total number of victims not yet clear
    https://x.com/BNONews/status/1939468958718935150

    Has the shooter was a Dem chorus started yet?
    They’ve found the body of the shooter I believe so at least the shooting is no longer active.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,154
    edited June 30
    eek said:

    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I suspect prosecuting BV will be problematic as the reporting of what he did doesn’t seem to quite match the reality.
    Is it the "death to the IDF" that is the issue? If so, then that would be quite an interesting case. It's a military force currently accused of multiple war crimes, not a proxy for all Jewish people.

    I don't think anyone would have an issue with "death to Hamas" or "death to the revolutionary guard" or "death to the Spetsnaz", for example.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,548
    Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

    An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

    I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

    We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,032
    Is it just me that finds the entire premise of this header objectionable?

    I don't want to live under the "control" of a state or government. I don't want the government to be in "control".

    I want to be free to make my own choices, and control my own life within the laws. The government should be setting a loose framework but it should not be in control.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 757
    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I thought Pandora had a box, not a vase?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,836
    Looks as if the government is preparing the grounds to abolish LISAs:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kgye03j9o

    I'd say that damaging the financial prospects of the prudent young to save £600m per year is a bad idea.

    Though damaging the prospects of the prudent young is doubtless seen as a feature not a bug by some Labour politicians.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,306
    edited June 30
    Morning troops,
    Welfare vote week dawns, still not guaranteed labour get this through, although thats heavy favourite given most of the rebels have been bought off by a set of jangling keys waved in their faces (almost as if it was never about the bill). Burnham still opposed from outside as within are the SCG and several more centrist MPs and all opposition parties.
    Is Starmer brave enough to make it a 3 line whip and suspend whip on perhaps 30 to 40 MPs? Or not and risk more rebellion/abstention?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,691
    edited June 30
    SandraMc said:

    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I thought Pandora had a box, not a vase?
    I wonder what the response had been if he'd shouted Death to the Russian soldiers?

    I'm also sure that BV didn't say let's firebomb IDF soldiers in hostels in Britain either.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,409

    Fishing said:

    Would you really want Rayner, Lammy, Reeves and all the other socialist idiots acting like they had a majority of 174?

    The country can just about cope with their incompetence and spite as long as they are timid. We'll stagnate or gradually decline for a few years and then maybe choose more wisely next time.

    A bolder Labour government would probably bankrupt us all - see Venezuela or Cuba.

    Excellent header - the politicians have yielded power to The Process State. Strangely, this means that increasing numbers of people think the politicians are powerless.

    The paradox of democracy - in Switzerland the voters have control. To the point they can remove laws against the wishes of the political class. And create laws, likewise.

    Yet the result is *more* stable. Because they have power, the voters of Switzerland have to be responsible.

    Given a Swiss setup, the first thing., in the U.K., would be a visit to the IMF. Then people would learn
    Surely, isn't it a case that because the voters have power, the politicians of Switzerland have to be responsible. You wouldn't have had Brexit because they wouldn't have felt impotent to power.
    Well, Switzerland can’t join the EU, because of its legal structure

    - to join the EU, the various laws need to be put in place as untouchable. Constitution level.
    - every law in Switzerland is subject to revocation by referendum
    - to create a class of law that can’t be amended by referendum you’d need a… referendum

    I’d say it’s more that the politicians in Switzerland are very aware that they are employees.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,865

    Nigelb said:

    Never thought I'd say this, particularly since I took the piss out of it at the start, seeing it as a vehicle for his colossal ego, but the Tony Blair Institute is increasingly coming out with interesting ideas:

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drop-spending-review-process-and-track-progress-urges-blair-body-5kt0c5pjj

    Tony Blair is forever cursed in making sensible suggestions that no-one wants to listen to.

    I have mixed feelings about his time in government (some actions great, some good, some very damaging) but he’s head and shoulders above the current political generation.
    If his institute had started with the sensible stuff like this half a decade ago, rather than trying to actually make policy, then it might have had far more actual influence on government.
    Tbf Tony initially may have been drunk with the success of his stint as Middle East peace envoy.
    That's just my point.
    Less hubris and more plain common sense might have given him far more influence.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,377
    SandraMc said:

    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I thought Pandora had a box, not a vase?
    No, box was a mistranslation of storage jar. This is PB and we love pedantry.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,154

    Is it just me that finds the entire premise of this header objectionable?

    I don't want to live under the "control" of a state or government. I don't want the government to be in "control".

    I want to be free to make my own choices, and control my own life within the laws. The government should be setting a loose framework but it should not be in control.

    That's a revealing take. I doubt anyone else could interpret the question in that way - it's about control over core government functions and policy delivery.

    Your Magna Carta/libertarian/WEF lens have shaped your view.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,409

    SandraMc said:

    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I thought Pandora had a box, not a vase?
    I wonder what the response had been if he'd shouted Death to the Russian soldiers?
    Shouting “Death!” to whatever enemy is only acceptable when Bernard Hill does it, just before leading a cavalry charge.

    Otherwise is it gauche, unpleasant and a bit furrin, really.

    Peak Britishness -

    ‘May the great God, whom I worship, grant to my country and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious victory, and may no misconduct in anyone tarnish it; and may humanity after victory be the predominant feature in the British fleet. For myself individually, I commit my life to him that made me; and may His blessing alight on my endeavours for serving my country faithfully. To him I resign myself, and the just cause which is entrusted to me to defend. Amen.’
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,491
    Remember the Australian (alleged) mushroom murderer? Jury is out:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn86y31vql5o

    No motive appears to has been found, which is the odd part.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,817
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    There have been very few instances in my adult life when I've genuinely felt the Government had lost control in the sense of events running the Government rather than the Government running events to the extent you really didn't know or couldn't see what the Government response was going to be.

    I'd offer the early stages of Covid as an example. From further back, "Black" or "White" Wednesday in 1992 and further back from that the Three Day Week. September 11th 2001 might be another but there aren't many.

    They were different - that was more about responding to an unexpected (or even expected) crisis.

    This seems to be a more significant sense of malaise or ennui about the state of the country and how the Govenrment is or isn't responding to that. I think one of the expectations many had from last July was after years of chaos and drift under the Conservatives, Labour would come in and be focussed and ready to implement solutions. Yes, some of the solutions might not work but it was better than the inertia which characterised the end of the Conservative years.

    The party was over, the bill was on the table and we now had to pay (knowing the cards were maxed out and we dind't have much cash). I suspect many knew there would be some kind of pain even if we all hoped it would impact more on the other guy.

    What we have (unfortunately and I say this as someone who genuinely wished the new Government well rather than laying into them before Starmer's car was halfway back from the Palace) is, oddly enough, more of the same. It's as though Rishi never left - the same inertia, the same drift, the same failure, despite an enormous Parliamentary majority, to do the big bold things many wanted. The echoes of Blair's first term are all too clear.

    Very much agree. So much politics is about telling the story. The reality, as far as objectivity is available, is generally always the same: we are a wealthy country doing OK with pluses and minuses, with much that is good about it.

    So politics is about three things in the round: a narrative that the glass is half full and getting fuller; running the gigantic enterprise that government has taken on itself to run really brilliantly well and persuading us that this is the case; finally having a sane vision of the direction of travel and telling a true story of where we are and how they plan to get there.

    I support this government on the basis that no better alternative is currently available to vote for. But marks out of 10 on these three heads:

    Narrative: 2/10
    Brilliant delivery: 3/10
    Vision 1/10.

    Am I being too generous?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,306
    boulay said:

    SandraMc said:

    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I thought Pandora had a box, not a vase?
    No, box was a mistranslation of storage jar. This is PB and we love pedantry.
    Actually i believe it was a cheap and nasty charm bracelet
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,491

    boulay said:

    SandraMc said:

    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I thought Pandora had a box, not a vase?
    No, box was a mistranslation of storage jar. This is PB and we love pedantry.
    Actually i believe it was a cheap and nasty charm bracelet
    Pandora's a tart! Pass it on!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,851

    Looks as if the government is preparing the grounds to abolish LISAs:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kgye03j9o

    I'd say that damaging the financial prospects of the prudent young to save £600m per year is a bad idea.

    Though damaging the prospects of the prudent young is doubtless seen as a feature not a bug by some Labour politicians.

    The big problem with them is that they can only be used to buy a property worth up to £450,000. Now, that sound like a lot, but in certain circumstances, that cap isn't enough. I'd like to use mine to help move myself and my parents to a property more suited to their needs, but it would be a lot more than £450,000.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,491
    tlg86 said:

    Looks as if the government is preparing the grounds to abolish LISAs:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kgye03j9o

    I'd say that damaging the financial prospects of the prudent young to save £600m per year is a bad idea.

    Though damaging the prospects of the prudent young is doubtless seen as a feature not a bug by some Labour politicians.

    The big problem with them is that they can only be used to buy a property worth up to £450,000. Now, that sound like a lot, but in certain circumstances, that cap isn't enough. I'd like to use mine to help move myself and my parents to a property more suited to their needs, but it would be a lot more than £450,000.
    Nor if a property is too cheap. You can't use a LISA to buy a property without using a mortgage.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,191

    Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

    An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

    I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

    We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis

    Did you see the two Tigers together? Must have been quite a sight & sound.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,865
    This is, I think, an underreported aspect of the bill Trump is trying to ram through Congress.

    In addition to the below:

    - ICE is authorized to become the largest domestic federal law enforcement agency.
    - ICE is authorized to become the largest jailer in our nation’s history.

    https://x.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1939366525259112542

    They already field armed, masked squads who arrest without warrant, and detain people indefinitely - often at undisclosed locations -without charges.

    And the political and legal constraints on them are far less than those on other agencies.

    The potential for an outright police state within a couple of years ought to be obvious.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,851
    carnforth said:

    tlg86 said:

    Looks as if the government is preparing the grounds to abolish LISAs:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kgye03j9o

    I'd say that damaging the financial prospects of the prudent young to save £600m per year is a bad idea.

    Though damaging the prospects of the prudent young is doubtless seen as a feature not a bug by some Labour politicians.

    The big problem with them is that they can only be used to buy a property worth up to £450,000. Now, that sound like a lot, but in certain circumstances, that cap isn't enough. I'd like to use mine to help move myself and my parents to a property more suited to their needs, but it would be a lot more than £450,000.
    Nor if a property is too cheap. You can't use a LISA to buy a property without using a mortgage.
    Oh really? That's interesting. I wish I'd never bothered, to be honest. Had COVID not happened, I might have bought my own place, but if the government abolishes them, I don't think it would be the worst thing.

    Again, they were set up to treat the symptom, not the cause.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,032
    Eabhal said:

    Is it just me that finds the entire premise of this header objectionable?

    I don't want to live under the "control" of a state or government. I don't want the government to be in "control".

    I want to be free to make my own choices, and control my own life within the laws. The government should be setting a loose framework but it should not be in control.

    That's a revealing take. I doubt anyone else could interpret the question in that way - it's about control over core government functions and policy delivery.

    Your Magna Carta/libertarian/WEF lens have shaped your view.
    That's a revealing take.

    I should hope everybody's principles shape their views.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,097
    edited June 30
    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.

    You really shouldn’t be walking dogs in this weather unless you do it early, like now. It’s better for them not to be walked than walk in heat.

    But if you do walk it at lunchtime please do it barefoot and in a fur coat so you can share it’s joy.
    Thanks for the reminder. It would be looking after whilst they visit an NT property itself.

    I'll take advice from the dog's owner, and the plan is ample water for the pooch, and it would be a 2/3 woodland shaded, waterside, route.

    But if it means I am going to have to sit in the pub with the dog under the table and a pint and a plate of chips, then I'll have to put up with that option.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,409
    carnforth said:

    boulay said:

    SandraMc said:

    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I thought Pandora had a box, not a vase?
    No, box was a mistranslation of storage jar. This is PB and we love pedantry.
    Actually i believe it was a cheap and nasty charm bracelet
    Pandora's a tart! Pass it on!
    In the original Ancient Greek legend, it was a pithos. A storage jar. This is a pithos -


  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,154
    Nigelb said:

    This is, I think, an underreported aspect of the bill Trump is trying to ram through Congress.

    In addition to the below:

    - ICE is authorized to become the largest domestic federal law enforcement agency.
    - ICE is authorized to become the largest jailer in our nation’s history.

    https://x.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1939366525259112542

    They already field armed, masked squads who arrest without warrant, and detain people indefinitely - often at undisclosed locations -without charges.

    And the political and legal constraints on them are far less than those on other agencies.

    The potential for an outright police state within a couple of years ought to be obvious.

    A fascist America was always going to be conducted via law enforcement. Just look at the military equipment they arm themselves with.

    I also hadn't realised that the "abductions" are a result of not having to have a warrant to lift someone off the street. So you have people sprinting into gardens when ICE show up.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,191

    SandraMc said:

    boulay said:

    Now that Glastonbury is over and there's room for actual news in the news, oh, hold on, the actual news is a debate over some hurty words or the worst incitement of unseemliness since Lucy Connolly.

    Doubtless with many having switched sides.

    I wouldn’t prosecute either LC or BV however now LC has been prosecuted and jailed you can’t not do the same to BV. Pandora’s vase is already open on free speech/proscribed speech sadly.
    I thought Pandora had a box, not a vase?
    I wonder what the response had been if he'd shouted Death to the Russian soldiers?

    I'm also sure that BV didn't say let's firebomb IDF soldiers in hostels in Britain either.
    I believe If they’d shouted ‘up to our knees in IDF blood’ that would have been perfectly acceptable.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,409
    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.

    You really shouldn’t be walking dogs in this weather unless you do it early, like now. It’s better for them not to be walked than walk in heat.

    But if you do walk it at lunchtime please do it barefoot and in a fur coat so you can share it’s joy.
    I'll take advice from the dog's owner, ample water for the pooch, and it would be a 2/3 woodland shaded, waterside, route.

    But thanks for the reminder.
    Someone was shouting at their water spaniel the other day. Getting really angry.

    It kept going into the Thames.

    You’d think that the name would have been a clue that if you let it off the lead, in hot weather, near a river….
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,334
    edited June 30

    Looks as if the government is preparing the grounds to abolish LISAs:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kgye03j9o

    I'd say that damaging the financial prospects of the prudent young to save £600m per year is a bad idea.

    Though damaging the prospects of the prudent young is doubtless seen as a feature not a bug by some Labour politicians.


    LISAs need reform rather than abolishing, though I would support the latter as a preference to how things currently are.

    The current problems are non-trivial:

    - it is not widely known that the product (which can function as a mortgage deposit or a pension) counts as saving when claiming UC and other benefits even though there would be a penalty to withdraw the money. Four years contributions would take an applicant out of UC eligibility entirely even if there is no other wealth at all. This is where some think that this amounts to government mis selling of a financial product.
    - the money can only be used to buy a first home below a certain level
    - there has to be a mortgage. It is not clear why this is a condition, other than to promote lenders I guess.
    - solicitors charge an additional fee when conveyancing where a LISA is involved. It is a small fee, but reduces the value of the product nonetheless
    - there can be a delay to the conveyancing while the buyers solicitor waits for for the money from the LISA provider

  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,377
    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.

    You really shouldn’t be walking dogs in this weather unless you do it early, like now. It’s better for them not to be walked than walk in heat.

    But if you do walk it at lunchtime please do it barefoot and in a fur coat so you can share it’s joy.
    Thanks for the reminder. It would be looking after whilst they visit an NY property itself.

    I'll take advice from the dog's owner, ample water for the pooch, and it would be a 2/3 woodland shaded, waterside, route.

    If it means I am going to have to sit in the pub with the dog under the table, then I'll have to put up with that option.
    Maybe take advice from every vet about walking dogs on warm days instead of the owner.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,380

    Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

    An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

    I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

    We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis

    Morning, PB.

    Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,817
    WRT the previous discussion on the last thread about the crisis of government debt,

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/29/alarm-mounting-debts-starmer-about-turn-on-welfare/#:~:text=As a share of GDP,financial year since 2000-01.

    I think the reality is that most of the big western countries are in a similar position and that collectively their view is this: that if any one country were out on its own in this problem, that country has a problem, but as long as we all have a similar problem then we have to be OK.

    We all have a similar problem, with most big western countries about the same debt to GDP level as us.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,334
    On ISAs more generally, I'm concerned about the pressure to abolish or severely restrict cash ISAs (leaving stocks and shares ISAs untouched).

    This pressure is coming from the financial services industry surprise surprise. I'm hoping that Reeves is not fooled but I don't have high hopes.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,409

    Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

    An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

    I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

    We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis

    Morning, PB.

    Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
    The problem comes when trying to get people to acknowledge that there is a limit to spending. We have plenty of MPs who quite simply don’t believe that you can’t just stick it on the national credit card
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,836
    tlg86 said:

    Looks as if the government is preparing the grounds to abolish LISAs:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kgye03j9o

    I'd say that damaging the financial prospects of the prudent young to save £600m per year is a bad idea.

    Though damaging the prospects of the prudent young is doubtless seen as a feature not a bug by some Labour politicians.

    The big problem with them is that they can only be used to buy a property worth up to £450,000. Now, that sound like a lot, but in certain circumstances, that cap isn't enough. I'd like to use mine to help move myself and my parents to a property more suited to their needs, but it would be a lot more than £450,000.
    So increase the limit.

    But stopping them because house prices are not affordable in the Waitrose belt penalises people in the rest of the country.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936

    DavidL said:

    We have talked before about the over medication and prescribed addictions in this country. 43% of Labour voters think this government has things under control? I want some of what they are having for a happier life.

    More alarmingly, 18% of the population, 1 in 5, think things are under control. That means that on my next jury of 15 there are probably 3 members who are utterly delusional.

    Let me guess, do you read the daily mail or the telegraph?
    When you have to fire pointless little barbs in the direction of DavidL, you are shilling for a government that is in deep, deep trouble.
    We know who you shill for though...
    Good morning

    To be fair @DavidL is one of the rarer breeds of sensible conservatives and to be honest he poses a fair question
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,548

    Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

    An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

    I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

    We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis

    Did you see the two Tigers together? Must have been quite a sight & sound.
    Yes it was!!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,097

    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.

    You really shouldn’t be walking dogs in this weather unless you do it early, like now. It’s better for them not to be walked than walk in heat.

    But if you do walk it at lunchtime please do it barefoot and in a fur coat so you can share it’s joy.
    I'll take advice from the dog's owner, ample water for the pooch, and it would be a 2/3 woodland shaded, waterside, route.

    But thanks for the reminder.
    Someone was shouting at their water spaniel the other day. Getting really angry.

    It kept going into the Thames.

    You’d think that the name would have been a clue that if you let it off the lead, in hot weather, near a river….
    I gave an unused deep shower tray to my "dog tenant" (the one who moved in with 9 dogs) when she first moved in.

    She had a water-dog that used to go bonkers with water.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,380

    Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

    An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

    I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

    We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis

    Morning, PB.

    Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
    The problem comes when trying to get people to acknowledge that there is a limit to spending. We have plenty of MPs who quite simply don’t believe that you can’t just stick it on the national credit card
    Indeed, but, conversely, this can also just as easily become a fetishisation of cuts in themselves, and as an end in themselves.

    Cameron and Osborne shouted this narrative almost every day, and yet they left the country in an even worse condition than when they started.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,427
    Yes the Starmer government is more reacting to events than leading on them
  • eekeek Posts: 30,487
    Stocky said:

    Looks as if the government is preparing the grounds to abolish LISAs:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kgye03j9o

    I'd say that damaging the financial prospects of the prudent young to save £600m per year is a bad idea.

    Though damaging the prospects of the prudent young is doubtless seen as a feature not a bug by some Labour politicians.


    LISAs need reform rather than abolishing, though I would support the latter as a preference to how things currently are.

    The current problems are non-trivial:

    - it is not widely known that the product (which can function as a mortgage deposit or a pension) counts as saving when claiming UC and other benefits even though there would be a penalty to withdraw the money. Four years contributions would take an applicant out of UC eligibility entirely even if there is no other wealth at all. This is where some think that this amounts to government mis selling of a financial product.
    - the money can only be used to buy a first home below a certain level
    - there has to be a mortgage. It is not clear why this is a condition, other than to promote lenders I guess.
    - solicitors charge an additional fee when conveyancing where a LISA is involved. It is a small fee, but reduces the value of the product nonetheless
    - there can be a delay to the conveyancing while the buyers solicitor waits for for the money from the LISA provider

    The first point is fixable - I’m not 100% of the best approach but it may be there is a reduction for UC or if UC is cut withdrawals need to be less penalized.

    Mind you pensioners don’t qualify for them so there is probably votes in scrapping them rather than other ISA types

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,812
    Battlebus said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    carnforth said:

    carnforth said:

    "whoops, I let in a million people"

    LOL


    LBC
    @LBC
    ‘You don’t let in a million people by mistake… A mistake is me forgetting my keys.’

    https://x.com/LBC/status/1939277090932597213

    As if Lewis Goodall wouldn't be in favour of letting a million people in in any other circumstance.
    It is a spurious argument as the UK needed immigrant workers to keep the wheels turning after the baddies from the East of Europe returned home after Brexit. Sir Boris was very candid that the shortfall could be replaced by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent. At the time it was a Brexit necessity.
    Drivel. Net immigration to the UK from the EU was positive from 2016 to 2021 and thereafter negative in tiny numbers. No replacement was involved. Augmentation, possibly.
    How very dare you.

    I suspect statistics will suggest that Eastern Europeans have returned in droves since 2019 until today. The dates you have picked (i.e from the Referendum) do not make sense in the context of the Starmerwave.
    Let's ask the ONS:



    Net positive until 2021, then small net negative. Were it not for covid, it probably would have been net positive all along.

    Points for using "how very dare you" unironically though. Recherché.
    I think Eastern European migration has been rather more negative, while migration from France and the like has continued.
    Bumped into an Uzbek in sunny Kent yesterday. He was lost. Seems we are searching further and further for temporary labour.
    Tash, Kent? (ba-dum-tish).
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,306
    Stocky said:

    On ISAs more generally, I'm concerned about the pressure to abolish or severely restrict cash ISAs (leaving stocks and shares ISAs untouched).

    This pressure is coming from the financial services industry surprise surprise. I'm hoping that Reeves is not fooled but I don't have high hopes.

    I think she sees it as a chance to artificially boost growth.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,491
    Stocky said:

    Looks as if the government is preparing the grounds to abolish LISAs:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kgye03j9o

    I'd say that damaging the financial prospects of the prudent young to save £600m per year is a bad idea.

    Though damaging the prospects of the prudent young is doubtless seen as a feature not a bug by some Labour politicians.


    LISAs need reform rather than abolishing, though I would support the latter as a preference to how things currently are.

    The current problems are non-trivial:

    - it is not widely known that the product (which can function as a mortgage deposit or a pension) counts as saving when claiming UC and other benefits even though there would be a penalty to withdraw the money. Four years contributions would take an applicant out of UC eligibility entirely even if there is no other wealth at all. This is where some think that this amounts to government mis selling of a financial product.
    - the money can only be used to buy a first home below a certain level
    - there has to be a mortgage. It is not clear why this is a condition, other than to promote lenders I guess.
    - solicitors charge an additional fee when conveyancing where a LISA is involved. It is a small fee, but reduces the value of the product nonetheless
    - there can be a delay to the conveyancing while the buyers solicitor waits for for the money from the LISA provider

    I assume the mortgage requirement is to co-opt the very strong legal protections around mortgages to apply to LISAs. Otherwise a cottage industry of fake property purchases to facilitate LISA withdrawals might spring up.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,097
    edited June 30
    On the subject of Brits feeling they have an inherent right to avoid the rules where they can find a way to do it.

    Sheep and cattle grids:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rIbZWblPaA

    (The context is that I need an accessible cattle grid to point the National Trust at that still works acceptable well.)
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,334

    Stocky said:

    On ISAs more generally, I'm concerned about the pressure to abolish or severely restrict cash ISAs (leaving stocks and shares ISAs untouched).

    This pressure is coming from the financial services industry surprise surprise. I'm hoping that Reeves is not fooled but I don't have high hopes.

    I think she sees it as a chance to artificially boost growth.
    How? The change would divert savings from the banking sector to the financial services industry. More tax would be raised from those who will not expose their money to risk and therefore have increased taxable savings interest.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,487
    edited June 30
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    On ISAs more generally, I'm concerned about the pressure to abolish or severely restrict cash ISAs (leaving stocks and shares ISAs untouched).

    This pressure is coming from the financial services industry surprise surprise. I'm hoping that Reeves is not fooled but I don't have high hopes.

    I think she sees it as a chance to artificially boost growth.
    How? The change would divert savings from the banking sector to the financial services industry. More tax would be raised from those who will not expose their money to risk and therefore have increased taxable savings interest.
    Last place on earth I would want to put money in is UK equities or any managed fund.

    If forced to do it I suspect we would see even more money in the low cost global trackers and a large amount of stock and share ISAs attached to cash like substitute products
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,409

    Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

    An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

    I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

    We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis

    Morning, PB.

    Indeed. So much of Cameron and Osborne's programme of savings and long-term prudence turned out to be anything but that. Avoiding productive long-term investments, like the current governments crazy decision to scrap most of their green growth plan, can have parallel effects in the economic sphere.
    The problem comes when trying to get people to acknowledge that there is a limit to spending. We have plenty of MPs who quite simply don’t believe that you can’t just stick it on the national credit card
    Indeed, but, conversely, this can also just as easily become a fetishisation of cuts in themselves, and as an end in themselves.

    Cameron and Osborne shouted this narrative almost every day, and yet they left the country in an even worse condition than when they started.
    The problem they had was a structural deficit.

    The response was *reduce the rate of increase of government spending* to above inflation, but below the rate of increase in GDP. Spending was never actually cut, overall.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,097
    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Second.

    Thanks for the header @TSE .

    @Taz is up early making his pint.

    Here 32C is forecast, and I will have a Deputy Dawg (a Shippoo *) to walk at lunchtime.

    * Training myself not to say "Sh*t Poo", as if he was related to Winnie; if I do that I will be in trouble.

    You really shouldn’t be walking dogs in this weather unless you do it early, like now. It’s better for them not to be walked than walk in heat.

    But if you do walk it at lunchtime please do it barefoot and in a fur coat so you can share it’s joy.
    Thanks for the reminder. It would be looking after whilst they visit an NY property itself.

    I'll take advice from the dog's owner, ample water for the pooch, and it would be a 2/3 woodland shaded, waterside, route.

    If it means I am going to have to sit in the pub with the dog under the table, then I'll have to put up with that option.
    Maybe take advice from every vet about walking dogs on warm days instead of the owner.
    These owners know their stuff.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,334
    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    On ISAs more generally, I'm concerned about the pressure to abolish or severely restrict cash ISAs (leaving stocks and shares ISAs untouched).

    This pressure is coming from the financial services industry surprise surprise. I'm hoping that Reeves is not fooled but I don't have high hopes.

    I think she sees it as a chance to artificially boost growth.
    How? The change would divert savings from the banking sector to the financial services industry. More tax would be raised from those who will not expose their money to risk and therefore have increased taxable savings interest.
    Last place on earth I would want to put money in is UK equities
    The financial services industry is actually trying to persuade Reeves that the UK public take insufficient risk with their savings.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,306
    HYUFD said:

    Yes the Starmer government is more reacting to events than leading on them

    Even his excuses aren't worth the trip. He was 'focused on the NATO summit' before coming back to deal with Welfare. Are we supposed to believe hes personally running everything and there are no ministers, no whips, no aides, no Morgan McTwittery? And if the government of the worlds 6th largest economy is, in fact, a one-man band, shouldn't that one man be capable of holding more than one thing in his head at a time?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,812
    edited June 30
    MattW said:

    On the subject of Brits feeling they have an inherent right to avoid the rules where they can find a way to do it.

    Sheep and cattle grids:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rIbZWblPaA

    (The context is that I need an accessible cattle grid to point the National Trust at that still works acceptable well.)

    Ewe must be joking!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,409
    MattW said:

    On the subject of Brits feeling they have an inherent right to avoid the rules where they can find a way to do it.

    Sheep and cattle grids:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rIbZWblPaA

    (The context is that I need an accessible cattle grid to point the National Trust at that still works acceptable well.)

    Cattle grid not properly built….

    Any progress on the idea of a gate that meets the requirements of holding livestock back but lets people with mobility issues through? And stops fuckwits letting the animals out, because “it’s a laugh”.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,306
    Stocky said:

    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    On ISAs more generally, I'm concerned about the pressure to abolish or severely restrict cash ISAs (leaving stocks and shares ISAs untouched).

    This pressure is coming from the financial services industry surprise surprise. I'm hoping that Reeves is not fooled but I don't have high hopes.

    I think she sees it as a chance to artificially boost growth.
    How? The change would divert savings from the banking sector to the financial services industry. More tax would be raised from those who will not expose their money to risk and therefore have increased taxable savings interest.
    Last place on earth I would want to put money in is UK equities
    The financial services industry is actually trying to persuade Reeves that the UK public take insufficient risk with their savings.
    And by 'their' we know who they think all the money should belong to!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,427

    Morning all! Back after 3 days away at Tankfest.

    An interesting piece in The Guardian - Britain is sick. Massive inequality and chronic poverty combined with front line service cuts means an NHS under siege and incurring enormous costs from people made ill by previous cuts.

    I'll keep making this point until the hard of thinking (hello Labour!!!) get it - cuts without reform cost more money than you save.

    We're going to need to spend more now on actual frontline healthcare to save a lot more in the long term and that means making savings on the stuff we are wasting money on. Cutting sickness welfare is not the answer, making people healthier is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/29/britain-in-2025-sick-man-of-europe-battling-untreated-illness-crisis

    After its u turn on sickness benefit cuts the right is now arguing Labour is not cutting enough and taxes will have to go up even more instead
Sign In or Register to comment.