For the reasons we have discussed on here in recent days I like the idea of abolishing SDLT but it can only be done if the income flow is replaced by something at least equivalent such as an annual capital tax on property. If that condition is met I think that there may be significant growth consequences of the change of policy but they will be overwhelmed by higher interest rates if we simply put the lost income on the credit card.
..“At first I thought somebody had made a mistake, that they got the wrong guy,” said Floyd Colley, who owns and operates the Brazos Bike Lounge on Austin Avenue. Garcia leased part of his old restaurant space to Colley to start his bike shop. Before that, he said Garcia was one of his first supporters as a young bike mechanic doing business out of his car.
“I wouldn’t have a shop if it weren’t for Sergio,” Colley said. “You heard all this stuff about rounding up dangerous criminals, but it’s like, ‘Well, he’s one of the best people I know.’ I certainly don’t believe he’s a dangerous criminal. There were months where Sergio didn’t even charge me rent.”
When Colley married his wife in 2022, Garcia catered the wedding.
Stuart Smith, cyclist and retired Waco attorney, had one question when he heard of Garcia’s arrest: “Why Sergio?”
“If they’re deporting him, it could be anybody,” Smith said.
Diaz-Espinoza, the Hispanic chamber president, said Garcia’s deportation is part of a troubling pattern, as ICE agents arrest people at immigration hearings and are empowered by a September Supreme Court decision to detain people based on appearance, speaking Spanish or even accented English.
“The protection of ‘Just do the right thing, put your head down, work hard, don’t get caught drunk driving’ – that’s no longer a safety net,” he said. “That’s no longer going to protect you.” ..
I mean I like some of Count Binfaces policies, especially the Phoebe Waller Bridge, but they are not going to be implemented either.
In the current era Binface's a statesman https://www.countbinface.com/manifesto On 23 this needs to be facility-wide, I've been to a theatre where the handwashing facilities in the toilets were overlapping a urinal...
I'm at work and can't listen to the speech but the preview on Today this morning said she was going to say that there would be significant cuts in government expenditure and half of this would go to deficit reduction whilst the other half went on tax cuts.
Which is pathetic. How can anyone even pretending to be grown up and responsible about our finances even mention tax cuts when we are borrowing £150bn a year except as a long term, blue sky aspiration?
Our finances are under massive structural pressure. As the ultra cheap loans taken out after the GFC are rolled over at current gilt rates the cost of our existing borrowing is going to sharply increase. For as long as those lunatics occupy both the Kremlin and the White House the pressure to increase our defence spending is immense. No party of any stripe are brave enough to tell our pensioners that the Triple lock has gone far enough. Care costs are not even close to being adequately funded at the moment and they are heading in 1 direction: up. No government is going to be able to stop a steady rise in public spending, no government. The real issues are what steps are we willing to take to moderate these increases and how are we going to pay for them?
It is utterly dishonest not to acknowledge that increased taxes and fewer tax breaks are going to be in that mix. Once again, the real issue is what proportion of that upward pressure is covered by taxes and what by offsetting cuts elsewhere. Tax cuts? Jeez.
Couldn't agree more. The debate on this on all sides is utterly pathetic.
Jeremy Hunt was getting some love here for his recent interview.
His two cuts to NI were bordering on the reckless. Labour have played a poor hand badly but Hunt salted the earth on his way out.
Not entirely sure how she can claim to bring cheap energy "back". Only about 15% of the cost is determined by UK Government policy (tax, levies) - the rest is wholesale prices, network costs etc.
I'm at work and can't listen to the speech but the preview on Today this morning said she was going to say that there would be significant cuts in government expenditure and half of this would go to deficit reduction whilst the other half went on tax cuts.
Which is pathetic. How can anyone even pretending to be grown up and responsible about our finances even mention tax cuts when we are borrowing £150bn a year except as a long term, blue sky aspiration?
Our finances are under massive structural pressure. As the ultra cheap loans taken out after the GFC are rolled over at current gilt rates the cost of our existing borrowing is going to sharply increase. For as long as those lunatics occupy both the Kremlin and the White House the pressure to increase our defence spending is immense. No party of any stripe are brave enough to tell our pensioners that the Triple lock has gone far enough. Care costs are not even close to being adequately funded at the moment and they are heading in 1 direction: up. No government is going to be able to stop a steady rise in public spending, no government. The real issues are what steps are we willing to take to moderate these increases and how are we going to pay for them?
It is utterly dishonest not to acknowledge that increased taxes and fewer tax breaks are going to be in that mix. Once again, the real issue is what proportion of that upward pressure is covered by taxes and what by offsetting cuts elsewhere. Tax cuts? Jeez.
Couldn't agree more. The debate on this on all sides is utterly pathetic.
Jeremy Hunt was getting some love here for his recent interview.
His two cuts to NI were bordering on the reckless. Labour have played a poor hand badly but Hunt salted the earth on his way out.
A very conservative speech and should give the party a lift
Oh, Big G!
That's very sweet, but Badenoch's political problem isn't showing she's a Conservative, it's showing she's a winner. Saying stuff a hall of Conservative Party members agree with isn't terribly difficult.
Working out a way to win back those lost to the more muscular right wing voice of Farage, without losing too many of more genteel Tories to the madcap dad that is Ed Davey, is an enormous conundrum, and there's no indication at all that Badenoch has an answer to it.
I think the stamp duty thing was a roll of the dice that could just get noticed and cut through - a bit like Osborne’s IHT pledge.
It’s unlikely to change the political landscape overnight - but it might make some people think again about deserting to Reform, and some others to at least give the Tories a hearing.
Or it might do the square root of sod all. But at least they’ve come out with something that is eye catching, and at least Kemi has tried her best to carve out a differentiator here in terms of approach and policy.
The speech won’t have won any awards. But Badenoch deserves more time, IMHO.
yeah it sounds good, but in reality it will just push ftb asking prices up even higher
A very conservative speech and should give the party a lift
Oh, Big G!
That's very sweet, but Badenoch's political problem isn't showing she's a Conservative, it's showing she's a winner. Saying stuff a hall of Conservative Party members agree with isn't terribly difficult.
Working out a way to win back those lost to the more muscular right wing voice of Farage, without losing too many of more genteel Tories to the madcap dad that is Ed Davey, is an enormous conundrum, and there's no indication at all that Badenoch has an answer to it.
After months of despair Badenoch gave an excellent speech and how it lands with the public who knows, but at least it should put Jenrick back in his box
A decent speech. Not enough to persuade me to rejoin the party, but reassurance that the least-bad option is still the Conservatives.
I think it has probably given me enough to cautiously start listening to the party again. I didn’t actually expect it to, so fair play to Badenoch there.
I still dont think they’re grappling with enough of the big issues, but I think they are at least making a start. I am a bit concerned by the authoritarian bent on the immigration topic and there are still fundamental questions of competence to address. This certainly isn’t a commitment to vote for or support them right now. But I will listen again. Which is more than I was prepared to do beforehand.
I too rather like Kemi Badenoch. Whereas Starmer is bad and loathsome, she is bad but amiable
However, she is pretty bad. The Tories maybe have one more roll of the dice and it’s gotta be Jenrick. He will at least get them noticed
Very able but too early? Is there a comparison with William Hague?
Yes. Like Hague she is talented, with lots of potential, but far too early to take the exposure of being LOTO after a crushing defeat. We'll see, but I doubt that Jenrick is the answer. The MPs really screwed it up by accidentally excluding Cleverly.
Talented?
She was Business Secretary at a time when the Post Office scandal was in the news and needed action. It still does, by the way. She did fuck all and when she gave evidence to the inquiry came across as arrogant and evasive.
She had a chance to show what she could do. She had a chance to show what the Tory party could be about - as on the side of the little people not the overweening corrupt and incompetent state. She fluffed that opportunity. I wrote about it here.
And every word of what I said then has turned out to be true. She has an ego but lacks emotional intelligence, achievement or the ability to work through problems and come up with practical solutions (see, for instance, her nonsense about the ECHR).
3 to 4 years away or longer. LibDem approach to promises
But she's got it out into the political debate and helps us think a bit harder about the housing market rather than the constant "build more" mantra - which, aside from anything else, is practically impossible in the short term because of a lack of builders and trades.
A lot of pressure on Labour to follow in November. It's widely regarded by economists as the single worst tax and getting rid could - genuinely - spark just a bit of economic growth.
I think the stamp duty thing was a roll of the dice that could just get noticed and cut through - a bit like Osborne’s IHT pledge.
It’s unlikely to change the political landscape overnight - but it might make some people think again about deserting to Reform, and some others to at least give the Tories a hearing.
Or it might do the square root of sod all. But at least they’ve come out with something that is eye catching, and at least Kemi has tried her best to carve out a differentiator here in terms of approach and policy.
The speech won’t have won any awards. But Badenoch deserves more time, IMHO.
yeah it sounds good, but in reality it will just push ftb asking prices up even higher
That is the point. More money for the elderly homeowners who are the target audience. As the cherry on top, the elderly homeowners get to convince themselves that they are helping their young un's.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing.
Is that a hint that she still has this bee in her bonnet about cutting help to people who are off work due to sickness? ('"sickness benefit" being more than minimum wage'.)
And I think she is tacking distinctly less Right than Jenrick - though TBF that is not difficult.
Does not pass my spending cuts tests - you're only serious if you go for health and/or pensioner benefits.
Potentially committing to even more health spending as she is saying they will be telling peeps on benefits for anxiety and depression that they need help and not a life on benefits not working.
Many of them currently are sat on waiting lists for mental health services. Indeed, many have ended up worse and not working because they didn't get timely care in first place.
National commissioning of mental health apps would help enormously here… but that’s not how NHS England is set up so it doesn’t happen.
A very conservative speech and should give the party a lift
Oh, Big G!
That's very sweet, but Badenoch's political problem isn't showing she's a Conservative, it's showing she's a winner. Saying stuff a hall of Conservative Party members agree with isn't terribly difficult.
Working out a way to win back those lost to the more muscular right wing voice of Farage, without losing too many of more genteel Tories to the madcap dad that is Ed Davey, is an enormous conundrum, and there's no indication at all that Badenoch has an answer to it.
After months of despair Badenoch gave an excellent speech and how it lands with the public who knows, but at least it should put Jenrick back in his box
I'm reminded of the endless standing ovations for Iain Duncan Smith, weeks before he was defenestrated.
I've not personally got a massive problem with Badenoch and actually do find her more likeable than Jenrick. But you said, "that should end any talk of a new leader" and I'm afraid you're living in a fantasy world. She has to provide evidence in polls and elections that she can unlock the puzzle of getting the Reform vote without unacceptable levels of loss to the Lib Dems on the other wing. Otherwise it's just a question of whether she goes in 2025 or 2026.
I too rather like Kemi Badenoch. Whereas Starmer is bad and loathsome, she is bad but amiable
However, she is pretty bad. The Tories maybe have one more roll of the dice and it’s gotta be Jenrick. He will at least get them noticed
Very able but too early? Is there a comparison with William Hague?
Yes. Like Hague she is talented, with lots of potential, but far too early to take the exposure of being LOTO after a crushing defeat. We'll see, but I doubt that Jenrick is the answer. The MPs really screwed it up by accidentally excluding Cleverly.
Talented?
She was Business Secretary at a time when the Post Office scandal was in the news and needed action. It still does, by the way. She did fuck all and when she gave evidence to the inquiry came across as arrogant and evasive.
She had a chance to show what she could do. She had a chance to show what the Tory party could be about - as on the side of the little people not the overweening corrupt and incompetent state. She fluffed that opportunity. I wrote about it here.
And every word of what I said then has turned out to be true. She has an ego but lacks emotional intelligence, achievement or the ability to work through problems and come up with practical solutions (see, for instance, her nonsense about the ECHR).
And for those who cannot read a whole page (** sigh **) here is the key section -
" If she succeeded in getting money out of the Treasury to pay compensation now (not when everyone has died), it would show her to be an effective political operator. It would give her a worthwhile achievement to set against the non-existent ones of her likely leadership rivals (Braverman, Mordaunt, Barclay). It would show her as someone on the side of the people (small businesses – once the party’s natural supporters) against those treating the public purse as a wallet to be raided for their personal benefit. It would distance her from previous leaders and make her look like a different sort of Tory, one who understands that the state and its institutions should act with integrity and that the party should be – and should be seen to be – on the side of those trying to do the right thing. Not on the side of the malefactors, the incompetents, the greedy and the self-interested.
None of this is easy. It might not work. But what good is a politician wanting to be leader who lacks courage or the desire to try and make things better? The Post Office scandal shows the British state at its worst – not on our side but only interested in denial, delay and indifference, only capable of incompetence, greed and malice, unconcerned about the human consequences of its actions. That view of the state is one which now – for very many voters – describes the Tory party – and many businesses (water companies, anyone?). Badenoch has an opportunity – a small one but an opportunity nonetheless – to start changing that, an absolute necessity if her party is to survive and thrive."
All good leaders have to a lesser or greater extent repudiated the mistakes and decisions of the party and previous leaders. Kemi has to do the same. But she won't so she won't get the Tories out of the hole they have dug for themselves.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing.
Well indeed. That’s the elephant in the room.
There’s very little they can do to fix that. I do think they should have gone stronger on repudiating the past - but that is hard for a party with a small parliamentary grouping and with most senior figures being involved in some way with that government.
But at the end of the day people will either decide their past record precludes them, or not. All they can do is keep chipping away and hope that the number in the latter group starts to grow again.
And, thanks to the OSA, they'll be disproportionately British...
Heads should roll at Ofcom. Their implementation of the OSA was almost guaranteed to lead to such issues. It's insane that we've basically switched from 20 years of telling people "don't give out Personally Identifiable Information on the internet" to "give out PII to anyone from anywhere who asks for it, to prove your age."
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing.
Well indeed. That’s the elephant in the room.
There’s very little they can do to fix that. I do think they should have gone stronger on repudiating the past - but that is hard for a party with a small parliamentary grouping and with most senior figures being involved in some way with that government.
But at the end of the day people will either decide their past record precludes them, or not. All they can do is keep chipping away and hope that the number in the latter group starts to grow again.
I agree it's a very difficult problem, but there are things she can do to distance herself from the past or repudiate old failures. A really obvious first step would be expelling Truss from the party (as Starmer did with Corbyn, of course, but it's more impactful as Corbyn was never PM). I don't really understand why they've not done this - it's a fairly obvious one.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing.
Well indeed. That’s the elephant in the room.
There’s very little they can do to fix that. I do think they should have gone stronger on repudiating the past - but that is hard for a party with a small parliamentary grouping and with most senior figures being involved in some way with that government.
But at the end of the day people will either decide their past record precludes them, or not. All they can do is keep chipping away and hope that the number in the latter group starts to grow again.
They need to start questioning some of their assumptions and understanding why they failed.
Repeatedly pretending it is easy to cut spending whilst protecting the elderly is at best naive and more likely completely disingenuous given our demographics.
And, thanks to the OSA, they'll be disproportionately British...
Heads should roll at Ofcom. Their implementation of the OSA was almost guaranteed to lead to such issues. It's insane that we've basically switched from 20 years of telling people "don't give out Personally Identifiable Information on the internet" to "give out PII to anyone from anywhere who asks for it, to prove your age."
Not true. Gamblers have been told we absolutely must give out personally identifiable, and financial, information to unregulated staff for the last decade.
I too rather like Kemi Badenoch. Whereas Starmer is bad and loathsome, she is bad but amiable
However, she is pretty bad. The Tories maybe have one more roll of the dice and it’s gotta be Jenrick. He will at least get them noticed
Very able but too early? Is there a comparison with William Hague?
Yes. Like Hague she is talented, with lots of potential, but far too early to take the exposure of being LOTO after a crushing defeat. We'll see, but I doubt that Jenrick is the answer. The MPs really screwed it up by accidentally excluding Cleverly.
Talented?
She was Business Secretary at a time when the Post Office scandal was in the news and needed action. It still does, by the way. She did fuck all and when she gave evidence to the inquiry came across as arrogant and evasive.
She had a chance to show what she could do. She had a chance to show what the Tory party could be about - as on the side of the little people not the overweening corrupt and incompetent state. She fluffed that opportunity. I wrote about it here.
And every word of what I said then has turned out to be true. She has an ego but lacks emotional intelligence, achievement or the ability to work through problems and come up with practical solutions (see, for instance, her nonsense about the ECHR).
Every reason to support her as LOTO. She has far more damage to do to the Conservatives, though Jenrick is giving her a run for her money.
It may well be the public are losing faith with fiscal rectitude and only a reality check from the market will change this. So there might be a route back to power for the Tories in letting Labour/Reform outbid each other and then be well placed to pick up the pieces. That's a decade long project though so won't be any good for Kemi.
One point Fraser Nelson (probably) made was the Conservatives need to move on from Mrs Thatcher. It is not like she spent all her time banging on about Stanley Baldwin or even Winston Churchill.
I'm in Bosnia. The war finished 30 years ago (actually it was just frozen, just when the Bosnian army was starting to make military progress. They reckon that if the war had run on another 3 months they would have lifted the siege of Sarajevo by military means and made inroads into the Serb occupied territories. An example that stopping a war is not all that is necessary, the aggressor needs to be defeated. There is anger that Republika Srpska is effectively the land they ethnically cleansed. Including Srebrenica. A reward for genocide). War wounds are still raw, I have spoken to people who served in ARBiH and another who was in a concentration camp at the age of 3. It is a nation (or 3 nations) with PTSD
But I digress. My point was going to be... was Europe this fucked up in 1975? When I was 10 and 30 years after WW2
Eastern Europe certainly was!
To give a longer answer, I think there were a lot of people with PTSD and other traumas from the war, even if we didn’t have that language to describe it. Germany was still struggling to come to terms with what had happened. There were many in Germany who had been ethnically cleansed from further east, with all the trauma that brought. The Iron Curtain was a scar across Europe. Other things going on in the ‘70s, like France and the UK’s experiences of decolonisation, were side-effects of the War.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing. .
Simon Marks on LBC says the Insurrection Act of 1807 will be invoked and we will see US Federal troops on the streets. Marks explains that Stephen Miller talks about the President's "plenary authority" and has said Democrat grandees will be exiled.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Tories are never ever going to do what is really necessary which is build loads more homes, many on green belt, and see the price of housing fall in real terms over time. Their voters won't have it. So you get almost entirely pointless fiscal measures instead, and they don't explain where the shortfall will be paid for.
Labour to their credit at least have the right ideas, build more homes and simplify planning, even if as yet there is little sign of an increase in construction.
If you are young and want to buy a house voting Tory will almost certainly not make it any easier for you.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
I don't follow this logic at all.
I understand that it's a highly progressive tax primarily on minted homeowners, but getting rid of it won't alter aggregate demand on housing while it does have the potential to significantly improve the efficiency and allocation of supply - if anything, it will see prices fall as a result.
It also had the effect of making it much cheaper for working people to move for a new job. I'd get stung for £10,000s if I were to move to Aberdeen for a better job. That's a serious inhibitor to economic growth.
I agree with DavidL above that it would best replaced with some form of property tax to further lubricate downsizing and cover the fiscal hole, but even in isolation I still think it's a great policy.
I listened to the Jeremy Hunt interviews on The Rest Is Politics Leading. Very intelligent guy - both real world and political intelligence. He can't be the only Tory left who is a decent human being and has a political brain.
Someone needs to rescue what is left of the party before it is too late. Jenrick thinks Enoch was Right. Cleverly shouts "cos its a shithole" abuses about towns *which have a Tory MP*.
Neither of these cretins can turn things around. But Hunt could. A pity the Tories won't vote for him cos he's practically a communist or something.
The Tories were mad to pick Johnson over Hunt. Brexit Derangement Syndrome in action.
Hunt would never have won the redwall seats in 2019 that Boris did. So it would have been another hung parliament and maybe even Corbyn PM and no Brexit.
Now Hunt has more chance of succeeding Ed Davey as LD leader than Kemi as Conservative leader
You're saying no Brexit like that would be a bad thing!
PM Corbyn possibly too propped up by the SNP
As a Labour supporter and Scotsman I probably wouldn't have looked on this prospect with the same feelings as you. Especially given the alternative on offer.
Exactly so precisely why your backing Hunt as Tory leader in 2019 was irrelevant
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Doesn't "net zero" generate growth i.e new technology energy provision and electric cars.
What Government increased welfare for "mild mental health problems"? I suspect "mild mental health problems " requires a definition.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
And, thanks to the OSA, they'll be disproportionately British...
Heads should roll at Ofcom. Their implementation of the OSA was almost guaranteed to lead to such issues. It's insane that we've basically switched from 20 years of telling people "don't give out Personally Identifiable Information on the internet" to "give out PII to anyone from anywhere who asks for it, to prove your age."
Including to companies based overseas, one/or their subcontractors also based overseas, that are not subject to GDPR or similar regulations.
Who in their right mind uploads a copy of their passport or driving licence to *an adult website*?
Seems a lot of people are very easily impressed by, essentially, "Let's have the smallest state possible and cut tax on everything" without any thought for how that bears out in the real world
Badenoch is being lionised here for giving a speech that anyone could give, setting out policies that anyone could advocate.
If it were that easy then the Tories would have already done it 10 years ago, reaped all the presumed economic benefits, and then won the next election handily. Except it isn't.
Stamp Duty has tons of flaws. There is some benefit reform that is clearly needed. Et Cetera. Hopefully Labour get rid of it - but with a property tax / land value tax of some sort to make up for the shortfall.
It is ridiculous to frame yourself as the party of sound money, and then say "We're undoing all of Labour's tax rises, we're not touching the triple lock, we're scrapping stamp duty... and um... we'll pay for all this with... I dunno, fewer civil servants?"
I too rather like Kemi Badenoch. Whereas Starmer is bad and loathsome, she is bad but amiable
However, she is pretty bad. The Tories maybe have one more roll of the dice and it’s gotta be Jenrick. He will at least get them noticed
Very able but too early? Is there a comparison with William Hague?
Yes. Like Hague she is talented, with lots of potential, but far too early to take the exposure of being LOTO after a crushing defeat. We'll see, but I doubt that Jenrick is the answer. The MPs really screwed it up by accidentally excluding Cleverly.
Talented?
She was Business Secretary at a time when the Post Office scandal was in the news and needed action. It still does, by the way. She did fuck all and when she gave evidence to the inquiry came across as arrogant and evasive.
She had a chance to show what she could do. She had a chance to show what the Tory party could be about - as on the side of the little people not the overweening corrupt and incompetent state. She fluffed that opportunity. I wrote about it here.
And every word of what I said then has turned out to be true. She has an ego but lacks emotional intelligence, achievement or the ability to work through problems and come up with practical solutions (see, for instance, her nonsense about the ECHR).
I wouldn't suggest she is particularly good but among the current crop of political leaders not that bad either.
Following on from my previous post the public showed a substantial tolerance for fiscal restraint after 2010 and the coalition's misguided anti keynesian response to the financial crisis. After house prices had trebled and bank assets as a proportion of GDP doubled in a decade (with a few people making fortunes in the city) no attempt was made other than to see the financial crisis as a public spending issue. A bit like Brexit I can at least understand the public might now say sod it, we've had enough of this market bollocks.
Excellent announcement from Kemi that a Conservative government would abolish Stamp Duty
SDLT raised 23-34 £11.6bn 22-23 £15.4bn
I don't disagree that Stamp Duty has negative effects on the housing market and mobility, but how will the tax be raised instead?
How bout cutting spending 👍
We, like most of Europe, have a choice -
Raise taxes on a dwindling workforce,
Cut benefits to politically powerful older voters,
Or borrow more, which is becoming harder and more expensive.
France has attempted all three in recent years. We (via Truss) attempted the last one. In all cases it hasn't gone well.
I was vacationing in Ajaccio with her magnificence recently and right in the middle of the day there was a protest march about the pension age rises proposed.
The time to do something would be just after the election. Labour could have addressed both 2, the care costs crisis and the welfare spend, then and get the bad news out of the way. By the next election it would be largely forgotten.
I voted for them, partly, hoping they would.
Sadly they bottled all of it and we tax what we want, work, and penalise the productive economy.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Yes - that is where the money is coming from and an excellent way to increase growth with many first time buyers benefiting
On stamp duty the buyer at the bottom of the chain in my daughters house sale was told the stamp duty would be £69,000 only for it to be amended to £119,000 due to it being an investment property [expensive one to be fair] resulting in a renegotiation up the chain
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
Yes it also helps the labour market, especially companies based outside London for whom SDLT is a big friction point in people moving for a new job.
Let councils raise council tax if they need to spend more money on local services.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
It will help the young and help get house sales moving. Stamp duty is a big block to people moving and, quite frankly, it is far better than Help to Buy, or shared ownership or any of the other guff keeping house prices elevated.
The two of us live in a 3 bed family detached. We won’t move, partly due to stamp duty we would pay on the sort of bungalow we would move to. Our house would be ideal for a young family.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
Please tell me that Kemi managed to make a joke at the expense of the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, when announcing that she would scrap stamp duty on houses?
Simon Marks on LBC says the Insurrection Act of 1807 will be invoked and we will see US Federal troops on the streets. Marks explains that Stephen Miller talks about the President's "plenary authority" and has said Democrat grandees will be exiled.
At least the Nazis had the decency (sic) to cobble together an actual fire, the MAGAs are just going to babble on about potential trans pyromaniacs chiselling Fck Trump on their firelighters and start from there.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Tories are never ever going to do what is really necessary which is build loads more homes, many on green belt, and see the price of housing fall in real terms over time. Their voters won't have it. So you get almost entirely pointless fiscal measures instead, and they don't explain where the shortfall will be paid for.
Labour to their credit at least have the right ideas, build more homes and simplify planning, even if as yet there is little sign of an increase in construction.
If you are young and want to buy a house voting Tory will almost certainly not make it any easier for you.
Mortgage debt is about 90% of Household debt (£211K) of those with mortgages. Non-mortgage household is about £17K. If house prices dropped the level of negative equity (at the margins) will trigger the sort of issues we saw in 2008. Bankers like Badenoch's husband may not wish that to happen. So they keep pumping. We're hooked on mortgage debt so prices (via inflation) have to rise.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
No it isn't. It gets the rest of the market moving, or removes something that stops some people for moving, thus freeing up properties for people to move to.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
No it isn't. It gets the rest of the market moving, or removes something that stops some people for moving, thus freeing up properties for people to move to.
I too rather like Kemi Badenoch. Whereas Starmer is bad and loathsome, she is bad but amiable
However, she is pretty bad. The Tories maybe have one more roll of the dice and it’s gotta be Jenrick. He will at least get them noticed
Very able but too early? Is there a comparison with William Hague?
Yes. Like Hague she is talented, with lots of potential, but far too early to take the exposure of being LOTO after a crushing defeat. We'll see, but I doubt that Jenrick is the answer. The MPs really screwed it up by accidentally excluding Cleverly.
Talented?
She was Business Secretary at a time when the Post Office scandal was in the news and needed action. It still does, by the way. She did fuck all and when she gave evidence to the inquiry came across as arrogant and evasive.
She had a chance to show what she could do. She had a chance to show what the Tory party could be about - as on the side of the little people not the overweening corrupt and incompetent state. She fluffed that opportunity. I wrote about it here.
And every word of what I said then has turned out to be true. She has an ego but lacks emotional intelligence, achievement or the ability to work through problems and come up with practical solutions (see, for instance, her nonsense about the ECHR).
I wouldn't suggest she is particularly good but among the current crop of political leaders not that bad either.
Following on from my previous post the public showed a substantial tolerance for fiscal restraint after 2010 and the coalition's misguided anti keynesian response to the financial crisis. After house prices had trebled and bank assets as a proportion of GDP doubled in a decade (with a few people making fortunes in the city) no attempt was made other than to see the financial crisis as a public spending issue. A bit like Brexit I can at least understand the public might now say sod it, we've had enough of this market bollocks.
She wants a UK ICE. That says particularly bad to me.
I too rather like Kemi Badenoch. Whereas Starmer is bad and loathsome, she is bad but amiable
However, she is pretty bad. The Tories maybe have one more roll of the dice and it’s gotta be Jenrick. He will at least get them noticed
Very able but too early? Is there a comparison with William Hague?
Yes. Like Hague she is talented, with lots of potential, but far too early to take the exposure of being LOTO after a crushing defeat. We'll see, but I doubt that Jenrick is the answer. The MPs really screwed it up by accidentally excluding Cleverly.
Talented?
She was Business Secretary at a time when the Post Office scandal was in the news and needed action. It still does, by the way. She did fuck all and when she gave evidence to the inquiry came across as arrogant and evasive.
She had a chance to show what she could do. She had a chance to show what the Tory party could be about - as on the side of the little people not the overweening corrupt and incompetent state. She fluffed that opportunity. I wrote about it here.
And every word of what I said then has turned out to be true. She has an ego but lacks emotional intelligence, achievement or the ability to work through problems and come up with practical solutions (see, for instance, her nonsense about the ECHR).
Every reason to support her as LOTO. She has far more damage to do to the Conservatives, though Jenrick is giving her a run for her money.
Encouraging for me is that there is at least a hint of some reflection. Wherever they are going, they need to recognise the "here" they are starting from.
A very conservative speech and should give the party a lift
Oh, Big G!
That's very sweet, but Badenoch's political problem isn't showing she's a Conservative, it's showing she's a winner. Saying stuff a hall of Conservative Party members agree with isn't terribly difficult.
Working out a way to win back those lost to the more muscular right wing voice of Farage, without losing too many of more genteel Tories to the madcap dad that is Ed Davey, is an enormous conundrum, and there's no indication at all that Badenoch has an answer to it.
After months of despair Badenoch gave an excellent speech and how it lands with the public who knows, but at least it should put Jenrick back in his box
The Conservatives have cleverly positioned themselves as different to the hard left in unions pocket government on one side, and the National Socialists on the other who want flags everywhere including in the classroom but have ruinous economic policies. The Boris Truss mess up seems so long ago already voters will soon forget it. If all Farage and nasty bits of work cronies around him has is “Boris Wave” and “a Labour illegal migrant hotel in every community getting all the welfare cheques” then Reform will soon have nothing and back to 3% in the polls they will go. 🥹
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
£300k is below even the average house price in London and the home counties so it will be very welcome to first time buyers there
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing. .
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
I don't think abolishing stamp duty will have much effect on first time buyers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need abolition as that does however solve the (massive) problem that moving from say one £500k house to another generates a whopping tax bill.
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
£300k is below even the average house price in London and the home counties so it will be very welcome to first time buyers there
Here's a visual representation of who will benefit from the removal of Stamp Duty. Average House Prices by Constituency. It's looking more like a desperate stunt rather than taking on Reform or even Labour. Who was it said they think CCHQ has it in for her?
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing. .
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
I don't think abolishing stamp duty will have much effect on first time buyers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need abolition as that does however solve the (massive) problem that moving from say one £500k house to another generates a whopping tax bill.
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Replacing stamp duty with a different property tax would be fine, and better than stamp duty. Getting rid of it without explicitly (and realistically, not magic cuts to budgets they failed to cut over 14 years) stating how to fund that is not.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing. .
Exactly.
Why should anyone believe them.
A decade in purgatory beckons.
Deservedly so
Very, very positive response to the Tories on WATO. And a blast from the past, Julie Kirkbride who is now a More in Common pollster.
Helen Whateley very impressed with Kemi today. Whateley suggesting that the ending of stamp duty will be paid for by cuts. There is no replacement tax ( yet) apparently.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
I don't think abolishing stamp duty will have much effect on first time buyers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need abolition as that does however solve the (massive) problem that moving from say one £500k house to another generates a whopping tax bill.
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Replacing stamp duty with a different property tax would be fine, and better than stamp duty. Getting rid of it without explicitly (and realistically, not magic cuts to budgets they failed to cut over 14 years) stating how to fund that is not.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing. .
Exactly.
Why should anyone believe them.
A decade in purgatory beckons.
Deservedly so
Very, very positive response to the Tories on WATO. And a blast from the past, Julie Kirkbride who is now a More in Common pollster.
Helen Whateley very impressed with Kemi today.
Didn’t Julie Kirkbride play Deirdre Barlow on Corrie?
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
£300k is below even the average house price in London and the home counties so it will be very welcome to first time buyers there
First time buyers don't buy average priced houses. They buy starter homes.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
I don't think abolishing stamp duty will have much effect on first time buyers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need abolition as that does however solve the (massive) problem that moving from say one £500k house to another generates a whopping tax bill.
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Replacing stamp duty with a different property tax would be fine, and better than stamp duty. Getting rid of it without explicitly (and realistically, not magic cuts to budgets they failed to cut over 14 years) stating how to fund that is not.
It’s mere Truss-ism.
If Reeves did similar, the remainder of the Tory fan club on here would be pointing out the irresponsibility, discussing fiscal head room and bond futures by now.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing. .
Exactly.
Why should anyone believe them.
A decade in purgatory beckons.
Deservedly so
Very, very positive response to the Tories on WATO. And a blast from the past, Julie Kirkbride who is now a More in Common pollster.
Helen Whateley very impressed with Kemi today.
Didn’t Julie Kirkbride play Deirdre Barlow on Corrie?
Yes. She was also the MP for Bromsgrove before Saj.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
£300k is below even the average house price in London and the home counties so it will be very welcome to first time buyers there
Abolishing stamp duty will make sod all difference. The housing market is not rational. Buyers start by asking what is the maximum they can borrow, and then buy houses priced at that amount. Nothing else is bought like that. No-one buys a car depending on the maximum they can finance. Abolishing stamp duty just increases the bid price.
And we know this will happen because we have already seen it at least twice, when dual-income families came to dominate the market, and when interest rates fell to near-zero. Increasing the amount people *can* pay for houses just increases the amount people *do* pay for houses.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
£300k is below even the average house price in London and the home counties so it will be very welcome to first time buyers there
First time buyers don't buy average priced houses. They buy starter homes.
Even starter homes in London, Surrey, Berkshire, Bucks, Hertfordshire etc are on average above £300k
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
I don't think abolishing stamp duty will have much effect on first time buyers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need abolition as that does however solve the (massive) problem that moving from say one £500k house to another generates a whopping tax bill.
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Replacing stamp duty with a different property tax would be fine, and better than stamp duty. Getting rid of it without explicitly (and realistically, not magic cuts to budgets they failed to cut over 14 years) stating how to fund that is not.
Abolishing stamp duty has been widely welcomed by think tanks and Paul Johnson has just said it is the worst of many bad taxes
Badenoch explained how it was to be paid for but also said she would welcome back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators all bringing in tax
It certainly has taken the media by storm and will make the headlines in all tomorrow's papers
Apart from being pleased with her 'conservative' speech I really hope she has ended Jenrick's ambitions
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
I don't think abolishing stamp duty will have much effect on first time buyers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need abolition as that does however solve the (massive) problem that moving from say one £500k house to another generates a whopping tax bill.
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Replacing stamp duty with a different property tax would be fine, and better than stamp duty. Getting rid of it without explicitly (and realistically, not magic cuts to budgets they failed to cut over 14 years) stating how to fund that is not.
It’s mere Truss-ism.
No as it is funded by spending cuts on welfare, reductions in civil service numbers and scrapping net zero costs
Does not pass my spending cuts tests - you're only serious if you go for health and/or pensioner benefits.
Potentially committing to even more health spending as she is saying they will be telling peeps on benefits for anxiety and depression that they need help and not a life on benefits not working.
Many of them currently are sat on waiting lists for mental health services. Indeed, many have ended up worse and not working because they didn't get timely care in first place.
That’s a genuine issue. And a not stupid policy to deal with it.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
£300k is below even the average house price in London and the home counties so it will be very welcome to first time buyers there
Here's a visual representation of who will benefit from the removal of Stamp Duty. Average House Prices by Constituency. It's looking more like a desperate stunt rather than taking on Reform or even Labour. Who was it said they think CCHQ has it in for her?
So massive benefit for house buyers in London and the home counties, exactly the area swing voters are most likely to consider Kemi's Conservatives and where Reform are less popular
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
I don't think abolishing stamp duty will have much effect on first time buyers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need abolition as that does however solve the (massive) problem that moving from say one £500k house to another generates a whopping tax bill.
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Replacing stamp duty with a different property tax would be fine, and better than stamp duty. Getting rid of it without explicitly (and realistically, not magic cuts to budgets they failed to cut over 14 years) stating how to fund that is not.
It’s mere Truss-ism.
No as it is funded by spending cuts on welfare, reductions in civil service numbers and scrapping net zero costs
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Abolishing stamp duty would pretty much pay for itself. Not wholly, but it's such a break on economic activity that it's removal would bring a hell of a lot of growth.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
I am sure no seller would even dream of adjusting the sale price if they know you, and your competitors as buyers, all have an extra few thousand available.
I don't think abolishing stamp duty will have much effect on first time buyers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need abolition as that does however solve the (massive) problem that moving from say one £500k house to another generates a whopping tax bill.
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Replacing stamp duty with a different property tax would be fine, and better than stamp duty. Getting rid of it without explicitly (and realistically, not magic cuts to budgets they failed to cut over 14 years) stating how to fund that is not.
It’s mere Truss-ism.
No as it is funded by spending cuts on welfare, reductions in civil service numbers and scrapping net zero costs
The reduction in civil service numbers thing, I note the Tories don't mention the reason why civil service numbers went up: Brexit. We took back control and, to exercise that control, you need to employ a bunch of people.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
£300k is below even the average house price in London and the home counties so it will be very welcome to first time buyers there
Abolishing stamp duty will make sod all difference. The housing market is not rational. Buyers start by asking what is the maximum they can borrow, and then buy houses priced at that amount. Nothing else is bought like that. No-one buys a car depending on the maximum they can finance. Abolishing stamp duty just increases the bid price.
And we know this will happen because we have already seen it at least twice, when dual-income families came to dominate the market, and when interest rates fell to near-zero. Increasing the amount people *can* pay for houses just increases the amount people *do* pay for houses.
There are quite a lot of people who buy cars based on what they can finance. And mobile phones. And holidays.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing. .
Exactly.
Why should anyone believe them.
A decade in purgatory beckons.
Deservedly so
Very, very positive response to the Tories on WATO. And a blast from the past, Julie Kirkbride who is now a More in Common pollster.
Helen Whateley very impressed with Kemi today. Whateley suggesting that the ending of stamp duty will be paid for by cuts. There is no replacement tax ( yet) apparently.
I’d be more surprised if Whateley was not impressed.
I haven’t listened to WATO in years. I’m watching the last Michael Praed episode of Robin of Sherwood. The Greatest Enema. It’s quite good.
Tories pre speech. "We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young." After. "A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!" Superb.
Yes, net zero spending scrapped, welfare scrapped for those with mild mental health problems who can be got back into work, overseas aid cut, no more cars for those with ADHD funded by taxpayer.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Overall that's possibly true because of a more efficient market, but in terms of actual tax paid it's nonsense - Stamp Duty is primarily paid by the richest moving from mansion to mansion.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
£300k is below even the average house price in London and the home counties so it will be very welcome to first time buyers there
Here's a visual representation of who will benefit from the removal of Stamp Duty. Average House Prices by Constituency. It's looking more like a desperate stunt rather than taking on Reform or even Labour. Who was it said they think CCHQ has it in for her?
So massive benefit for house buyers in London and the home counties, exactly the area swing voters are most likely to consider Kemi's Conservatives and where Reform are less popular
Can't put up a second pic but do you want to check your understanding against the latest Election Maps? South East is a sea of the other kind of blue.
Listening to her speech, the single biggest problem is that all the things she says need to be done are precisely the things her party has spent a decade demonstrating that they are incapable of doing. .
Exactly.
Why should anyone believe them.
A decade in purgatory beckons.
Deservedly so
Very, very positive response to the Tories on WATO. And a blast from the past, Julie Kirkbride who is now a More in Common pollster.
Helen Whateley very impressed with Kemi today.
Didn’t Julie Kirkbride play Deirdre Barlow on Corrie?
Comments
“Why Sergio?”: Deportation ends 36-year dream for celebrated Waco chef
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/10/07/texas-waco-chef-deported-sergio-garcia-ice-undocumented/
Sergio Garcia built a wide following for his regional Mexican cuisine over the decades, becoming a favorite of the White House press corps visiting Waco during the Bush presidency. Then in March, ICE came looking for him...
..“At first I thought somebody had made a mistake, that they got the wrong guy,” said Floyd Colley, who owns and operates the Brazos Bike Lounge on Austin Avenue. Garcia leased part of his old restaurant space to Colley to start his bike shop. Before that, he said Garcia was one of his first supporters as a young bike mechanic doing business out of his car.
“I wouldn’t have a shop if it weren’t for Sergio,” Colley said. “You heard all this stuff about rounding up dangerous criminals, but it’s like, ‘Well, he’s one of the best people I know.’ I certainly don’t believe he’s a dangerous criminal. There were months where Sergio didn’t even charge me rent.”
When Colley married his wife in 2022, Garcia catered the wedding.
Stuart Smith, cyclist and retired Waco attorney, had one question when he heard of Garcia’s arrest: “Why Sergio?”
“If they’re deporting him, it could be anybody,” Smith said.
Diaz-Espinoza, the Hispanic chamber president, said Garcia’s deportation is part of a troubling pattern, as ICE agents arrest people at immigration hearings and are empowered by a September Supreme Court decision to detain people based on appearance, speaking Spanish or even accented English.
“The protection of ‘Just do the right thing, put your head down, work hard, don’t get caught drunk driving’ – that’s no longer a safety net,” he said. “That’s no longer going to protect you.”
..
£12b on new tax reduction pledges and a new border force and £10b lost on stamp duty.
Nevertheless, this leaves a many $billions hole.
Tory numbers don’t add up.
On 23 this needs to be facility-wide, I've been to a theatre where the handwashing facilities in the toilets were overlapping a urinal...
His two cuts to NI were bordering on the reckless. Labour have played a poor hand badly but Hunt salted the earth on his way out.
No Ken Clarke he.
That's very sweet, but Badenoch's political problem isn't showing she's a Conservative, it's showing she's a winner. Saying stuff a hall of Conservative Party members agree with isn't terribly difficult.
Working out a way to win back those lost to the more muscular right wing voice of Farage, without losing too many of more genteel Tories to the madcap dad that is Ed Davey, is an enormous conundrum, and there's no indication at all that Badenoch has an answer to it.
I still dont think they’re grappling with enough of the big issues, but I think they are at least making a start. I am a bit concerned by the authoritarian bent on the immigration topic and there are still fundamental questions of competence to address. This certainly isn’t a commitment to vote for or support them right now. But I will listen again. Which is more than I was prepared to do beforehand.
* Although Natasha Clark says Kemi has had a good week and Jenrick has not.
N.B. If Jenrick hadn't fire bombed the Conference would Kemi have enen got a hearing?
She was Business Secretary at a time when the Post Office scandal was in the news and needed action. It still does, by the way. She did fuck all and when she gave evidence to the inquiry came across as arrogant and evasive.
She had a chance to show what she could do. She had a chance to show what the Tory party could be about - as on the side of the little people not the overweening corrupt and incompetent state. She fluffed that opportunity. I wrote about it here.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/07/18/a-missed-opportunity/
And every word of what I said then has turned out to be true. She has an ego but lacks emotional intelligence, achievement or the ability to work through problems and come up with practical solutions (see, for instance, her nonsense about the ECHR).
A lot of pressure on Labour to follow in November. It's widely regarded by economists as the single worst tax and getting rid could - genuinely - spark just a bit of economic growth.
With the UK's demographics and international political climate, spending is only going to increase.
Is that a hint that she still has this bee in her bonnet about cutting help to people who are off work due to sickness? ('"sickness benefit" being more than minimum wage'.)
And I think she is tacking distinctly less Right than Jenrick - though TBF that is not difficult.
I've not personally got a massive problem with Badenoch and actually do find her more likeable than Jenrick. But you said, "that should end any talk of a new leader" and I'm afraid you're living in a fantasy world. She has to provide evidence in polls and elections that she can unlock the puzzle of getting the Reform vote without unacceptable levels of loss to the Lib Dems on the other wing. Otherwise it's just a question of whether she goes in 2025 or 2026.
" If she succeeded in getting money out of the Treasury to pay compensation now (not when everyone has died), it would show her to be an effective political operator. It would give her a worthwhile achievement to set against the non-existent ones of her likely leadership rivals (Braverman, Mordaunt, Barclay). It would show her as someone on the side of the people (small businesses – once the party’s natural supporters) against those treating the public purse as a wallet to be raided for their personal benefit. It would distance her from previous leaders and make her look like a different sort of Tory, one who understands that the state and its institutions should act with integrity and that the party should be – and should be seen to be – on the side of those trying to do the right thing. Not on the side of the malefactors, the incompetents, the greedy and the self-interested.
None of this is easy. It might not work. But what good is a politician wanting to be leader who lacks courage or the desire to try and make things better? The Post Office scandal shows the British state at its worst – not on our side but only interested in denial, delay and indifference, only capable of incompetence, greed and malice, unconcerned about the human consequences of its actions. That view of the state is one which now – for very many voters – describes the Tory party – and many businesses (water companies, anyone?). Badenoch has an opportunity – a small one but an opportunity nonetheless – to start changing that, an absolute necessity if her party is to survive and thrive."
All good leaders have to a lesser or greater extent repudiated the mistakes and decisions of the party and previous leaders. Kemi has to do the same. But she won't so she won't get the Tories out of the hole they have dug for themselves.
There’s very little they can do to fix that. I do think they should have gone stronger on repudiating the past - but that is hard for a party with a small parliamentary grouping and with most senior figures being involved in some way with that government.
But at the end of the day people will either decide their past record precludes them, or not. All they can do is keep chipping away and hope that the number in the latter group starts to grow again.
- Raise taxes on a dwindling workforce,
- Cut benefits to politically powerful older voters,
- Or borrow more, which is becoming harder and more expensive.
France has attempted all three in recent years. We (via Truss) attempted the last one. In all cases it hasn't gone well.Repeatedly pretending it is easy to cut spending whilst protecting the elderly is at best naive and more likely completely disingenuous given our demographics.
@JohnRentoul
·
27m
Kemi Badenoch promises to abolish stamp duty. Hurrah. But where is the £12bn a year coming from?
"We must tackle the deficit and do something for the young."
After.
"A £15bn bung to homeowners to inflate house prices!"
Superb.
Why should anyone believe them.
Simon Marks on LBC says the Insurrection Act of 1807 will be invoked and we will see US Federal troops on the streets. Marks explains that Stephen Miller talks about the President's "plenary authority" and has said Democrat grandees will be exiled.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807#:~:text=The Insurrection Act of 1807,insurrection, and of armed rebellion
.
Then with those savings stamp duty scrapped benefiting young first time buyers most
Labour to their credit at least have the right ideas, build more homes and simplify planning, even if as yet there is little sign of an increase in construction.
If you are young and want to buy a house voting Tory will almost certainly not make it any easier for you.
I understand that it's a highly progressive tax primarily on minted homeowners, but getting rid of it won't alter aggregate demand on housing while it does have the potential to significantly improve the efficiency and allocation of supply - if anything, it will see prices fall as a result.
It also had the effect of making it much cheaper for working people to move for a new job. I'd get stung for £10,000s if I were to move to Aberdeen for a better job. That's a serious inhibitor to economic growth.
I agree with DavidL above that it would best replaced with some form of property tax to further lubricate downsizing and cover the fiscal hole, but even in isolation I still think it's a great policy.
Also as a perspective first time buyer, I see it as a potential bung to me, so all for the good.
What Government increased welfare for "mild mental health problems"? I suspect "mild mental health problems " requires a definition.
Who in their right mind uploads a copy of their passport or driving licence to *an adult website*?
Badenoch is being lionised here for giving a speech that anyone could give, setting out policies that anyone could advocate.
If it were that easy then the Tories would have already done it 10 years ago, reaped all the presumed economic benefits, and then won the next election handily. Except it isn't.
Stamp Duty has tons of flaws. There is some benefit reform that is clearly needed. Et Cetera. Hopefully Labour get rid of it - but with a property tax / land value tax of some sort to make up for the shortfall.
It is ridiculous to frame yourself as the party of sound money, and then say "We're undoing all of Labour's tax rises, we're not touching the triple lock, we're scrapping stamp duty... and um... we'll pay for all this with... I dunno, fewer civil servants?"
Following on from my previous post the public showed a substantial tolerance for fiscal restraint after 2010 and the coalition's misguided anti keynesian response to the financial crisis. After house prices had trebled and bank assets as a proportion of GDP doubled in a decade (with a few people making fortunes in the city) no attempt was made other than to see the financial crisis as a public spending issue. A bit like Brexit I can at least understand the public might now say sod it, we've had enough of this market bollocks.
The time to do something would be just after the election. Labour could have addressed both 2, the care costs crisis and the welfare spend, then and get the bad news out of the way. By the next election it would be largely forgotten.
I voted for them, partly, hoping they would.
Sadly they bottled all of it and we tax what we want, work, and penalise the productive economy.
On stamp duty the buyer at the bottom of the chain in my daughters house sale was told the stamp duty would be £69,000 only for it to be amended to £119,000 due to it being an investment property [expensive one to be fair] resulting in a renegotiation up the chain
Let councils raise council tax if they need to spend more money on local services.
The two of us live in a 3 bed family detached. We won’t move, partly due to stamp duty we would pay on the sort of bungalow we would move to. Our house would be ideal for a young family.
There's also no duty for first time buyers up to £300k - so a load bollocks from you there.
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-household-debt-uk
That says particularly bad to me.
No sooner does the world's highest bridge open (625m / 2,050 ft) than people start bungee-jumping off it...
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1975561736418959777
I feel we deserve his account, in return for all the free editorial advice he gets here.
Oh lord let us cut the deficit
*Checks notes re homeowners and pensioners*
But not just yet
We should be encouraging people to move house whenever it makes sense for them to do so, rather than the opposite, the more efficiently the housing stock is used, the better.
It's also a big deal for business - if you're running a small business trying to buy business premises, getting whacked for a load of SDLT right at the point you are most stretched anyway by moving and disruption costs is particularly inconvenient.
The best way to help first time buyers is to reduce demand by turning immigration negative and to build more houses.
Helen Whateley very impressed with Kemi today. Whateley suggesting that the ending of stamp duty will be paid for by cuts. There is no replacement tax ( yet) apparently.
Not a serious party.
And we know this will happen because we have already seen it at least twice, when dual-income families came to dominate the market, and when interest rates fell to near-zero. Increasing the amount people *can* pay for houses just increases the amount people *do* pay for houses.
Badenoch explained how it was to be paid for but also said she would welcome back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators all bringing in tax
It certainly has taken the media by storm and will make the headlines in all tomorrow's papers
Apart from being pleased with her 'conservative' speech I really hope she has ended Jenrick's ambitions
I haven’t listened to WATO in years. I’m watching the last Michael Praed episode of Robin of Sherwood. The Greatest Enema. It’s quite good.
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast