No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
1. I'll take your word for it. 2. That is not in any way 'getting us back on track' - it will excacerbate housing costs in the short term and could lead to massive US venture capital takeovers of housing stock in the longer term. 3. Whether this is 'back on track', except literally, remains to be seen. Changing the ownership of something is not in and of itself a beneficial development. 4. A small reduction in waiting lists is to be welcomed 5. Onshore wind in Scotland is largely a racket, as well as being a visual blight. I don't consider that to be 'back on track' but enjoy. 6. Got to be the worst Chancellor of our lifetimes.
Re:#2 in your list.
Lloyds, having milked HMG for Motability for years, have now set their sights on being a large providers of rented accommodation. Some 7000+ homes at a valuation of £2bn already after 4 years and ambitions to grow larger. Targeting the commuter belt so don't expect an affordable home in that area for a while or rents to go down.
On the other hand, if it all goes belly up, they'll be back to HMG (again)
It'll get no traction. Unless Starmer's in the Epstein file.
Politics - indeed world news - is going to be dominated as of today by the fall of Trump, the 25th Amendment, the rise of dead duck President J D Vance. The airbrushing from history of the Epstein associates. The anger of MAGA at how they've been used. The quiet clear-out of Republicans who supported Trump, either by not standing again or by the wrath of the voters.
Strap up for a hell of a ride...
I don't think today will see the fall of Trump.
Just saying.
I still find it difficult to believe that, if there was something in the Epstein files that was so disqualifying for Trump that half the Senate GOP would vote to impeach him or for his Cabinet to invoke 25th Amendment, that it wouldn’t have leaked from Biden’s DOJ to a friendly journalist before the election.
It was sealed as part of a court case.
Just because Trump behaves like that it doesn’t mean everyone does
International sanctions are working on Russian O&G exports, and Ukranian kinetic sanctions are disrupting the domestic market. The latest one is apparently regional governments trying to set a ceiling price on petrol and diesel, and we all know how that ends.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Sorry, how would they find the Implementation was illegal when WASPI have lost every previous court case and the ombudsman spoke about maladministration only over a decade after the law was changed ?
It also said it was only a recommendation, it could not compel the govt, and there was no obligation on the govt to tell people about changes to the benefit system
My pension age has changed twice. I’ve had no letter. Am I entitled to a handout
Isnt a Judicial Review about process, rather than the decision itself?
In order for the WASPI case to be refused the govrrnment has to show that all relevant information was reviewed when making the decision.
A JR can decide that a matter has to be done again because of a failure/illegality/omission etc in the process - this is often because governments have hamstrung themselves with obscure laws which bind them especially since WWII. A JR can also say that a decision is illegal, and so void, in itself because it breaks the law.
That government can't break its own laws and when it does it will obey the courts is a difference between us and North Korea, Russia, and now of course the USA.
One of the most interesting questions for a Reform government will be how it approaches this.
Absolutely this.
WASPI women aren't popular people because of their exaggerated demands for money but that doesn't remove the fact the previous government and the DWP badly botched the pension age increase, resulting in a number of women losing income for several months when they might have made other arrangements. And the fact people aren't necessarily on top of their finances isn't an excuse for government not following the proper processes.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
On planning - the result has been that large chunks of the construction industry are in recession. Records lows for new starts etc. now companies in the supply chains starting to go under..
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
1. I'll take your word for it. 2. That is not in any way 'getting us back on track' - it will excacerbate housing costs in the short term and could lead to massive US venture capital takeovers of housing stock in the longer term. 3. Whether this is 'back on track', except literally, remains to be seen. Changing the ownership of something is not in and of itself a beneficial development. 4. A small reduction in waiting lists is to be welcomed 5. Onshore wind in Scotland is largely a racket, as well as being a visual blight. I don't consider that to be 'back on track' but enjoy. 6. Got to be the worst Chancellor of our lifetimes.
Re:#2 in your list.
Lloyds, having milked HMG for Motability for years, have now set their sights on being a large providers of rented accommodation. Some 7000+ homes at a valuation of £2bn already after 4 years and ambitions to grow larger. Targeting the commuter belt so don't expect an affordable home in that area for a while or rents to go down.
On the other hand, if it all goes belly up, they'll be back to HMG (again)
If they were investing to build new homes that would be mostly good, but instead they’re just buying up existing homes, which does nothing except keep prices higher.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Look another squadron of pigs just flew past, absolutely cuckoo
Streeting denies plotting against PM after leadership claims
He added that briefings to the press against him were "the worst attack on a faithful since Joe Marler was banished in The Traitors final".
"Someone has definitely been watching too much Celebrity Traitors. They should swap to Countryfile," he said.
He added that Lucy Powell, the party's new deputy leader, was "right about the culture in No 10" adding: "I'd like to commend the briefer on at least picking on one of the men in the cabinet instead of the women."
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
It was splattered all over the place years before it happened, just another set of grifters. You can bet that the lawyers will be getting funded out of some public quango charity.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble, fall of the US system of government, etc etc
Its being so cheerful that keeps me going.
Worse than that, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is optimistic.
I was hoping for more effectiveness from SKS and the Labour government, but it doesn't seem a good idea for them to follow the Conservatives' pattern of changing leader frequently. True, they have a lot of people who'd all like a go, no doubt, but IMHO it would be better to try to find a plan & put it into practice.
Changing leaders is instability.
The downside of a massive majority - too many ambitious souls think they'd be better than what they've got. Which is probably fair, on the evidence available...
Why do the hard yards in convincing the electorate when you can mount a palace coup. SKS's problem was he was too successful. Kemi's problem is she's a dud. And Nigel's (or Citizen Nigel) problems stem back from a long time ago in Dulwich. Wonder what his 'Rosebud' is?
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
1. I'll take your word for it. 2. That is not in any way 'getting us back on track' - it will excacerbate housing costs in the short term and could lead to massive US venture capital takeovers of housing stock in the longer term. 3. Whether this is 'back on track', except literally, remains to be seen. Changing the ownership of something is not in and of itself a beneficial development. 4. A small reduction in waiting lists is to be welcomed 5. Onshore wind in Scotland is largely a racket, as well as being a visual blight. I don't consider that to be 'back on track' but enjoy. 6. Got to be the worst Chancellor of our lifetimes.
Re:#2 in your list.
Lloyds, having milked HMG for Motability for years, have now set their sights on being a large providers of rented accommodation. Some 7000+ homes at a valuation of £2bn already after 4 years and ambitions to grow larger. Targeting the commuter belt so don't expect an affordable home in that area for a while or rents to go down.
On the other hand, if it all goes belly up, they'll be back to HMG (again)
If they were investing to build new homes that would be mostly good, but instead they’re just buying up existing homes, which does nothing except keep prices higher.
Renters getting what they wanted.
A consequence of the Renters Rights Bill.
Small landlords exit,the market, and some see that as good, and large ones buy property en masse. Blackstone and L&G, who’ve also built to let, being two others,
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
It was splattered all over the place years before it happened, just another set of grifters. You can bet that the lawyers will be getting funded out of some public quango charity.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble, fall of the US system of government, etc etc
Its being so cheerful that keeps me going.
Worse than that, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is optimistic.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
On planning - the result has been that large chunks of the construction industry are in recession. Records lows for new starts etc. now companies in the supply chains starting to go under..
Can’t think why everyone isn’t cheering.
Problem is you start losing the supply chain you’re fucked when it picks up again.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble
.
You’re an investor
These are all opportunities to make some money.
As I am 60 and retired I have been gradually switching my investments from equities to mixed assets/income fund/bonds and money market funds.
Meanwhile the FTSE nudges 10,000 !!
Yes, I have shifted my portfolio quite substantially more defensively over the last 6 months.
Pretty much everything looks overvalued to me at present with little upside potential.
I started shifting when I saw Warren Buffett was moving to cash. He’s the GOAT.
I see little upside in tech for sure.
I’m quite happy with my dividend portfolio.
Party is not over yet and last 6 months have been very good. I have reduced some risk but money is still in equities at the moment , I am up 12% so far this year.
It's worth a note that I have unusually not seen any Ref UK Councillors defenestrating in the last 10 days or so.
There's the usual background of "Oops did I really say that the police now are a bunch of politically indoctrinated British hating scum (amongst other things), immediately before I was elected" stuff, but not defenestrations.
I'm not sure whether they have all gone away on a team building exercise around a re-enactment of the assault on the Ehrenfels by the Calcutta Light Horse in 1943 (Operation Creek * aka The Goa Incident), or just run head on into the budgetary process.
The last time I looked at the change numbers was about 30 days since the end of conference, and ignoring the conference specials it was approximately evens in and out for RefUK since then.
Checking, since the start of Nov, transfers involving RefUK are as below. It's level from Ind / Con / Byelections. Obvious caveats are small samples, and this log page being when they log it not the date of the change etc.
Totals. Ref Losses: 3. Ref Gains: 9
Ref -> Con: 1 Ref -> Ind: 1 Ref -> Vacant: 1
Con -> Ref 3 Ind -> Ref 3 Vacant -> Ref 3
A few days ago I made it part way through building an SS to analyse that log page to give a table by pairs of parties, but did not have time to finish it.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble
.
You’re an investor
These are all opportunities to make some money.
As I am 60 and retired I have been gradually switching my investments from equities to mixed assets/income fund/bonds and money market funds.
Meanwhile the FTSE nudges 10,000 !!
Yes, I have shifted my portfolio quite substantially more defensively over the last 6 months.
Pretty much everything looks overvalued to me at present with little upside potential.
I started shifting when I saw Warren Buffett was moving to cash. He’s the GOAT.
I see little upside in tech for sure.
I’m quite happy with my dividend portfolio.
Party is not over yet and last 6 months have been very good. I have reduced some risk but money is still in equities at the moment , I am up 12% so far this year.
Agreed. I think there's plenty more bubble before the burst.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble
.
You’re an investor
These are all opportunities to make some money.
As I am 60 and retired I have been gradually switching my investments from equities to mixed assets/income fund/bonds and money market funds.
Meanwhile the FTSE nudges 10,000 !!
Yes, I have shifted my portfolio quite substantially more defensively over the last 6 months.
Pretty much everything looks overvalued to me at present with little upside potential.
I started shifting when I saw Warren Buffett was moving to cash. He’s the GOAT.
I see little upside in tech for sure.
I’m quite happy with my dividend portfolio.
Party is not over yet and last 6 months have been very good. I have reduced some risk but money is still in equities at the moment , I am up 12% so far this year.
I’ll still retain a portion of equities Malc, from the portion of my SIPP that is longer term, but fewer of them and I do like my dividend stocks and steadier stocks. I’m at the stage where I’m moving to preserve capital. I’m not touching my SIPPs at the moment. I’m still running down my ‘fuck you’ money. But I’m wary of pound cost ravaging and I’ve not seen how this AI is monetised yet.
Downing Street sources tell me they were not pro-actively putting it out that the PM would fight fight and fight again against any leadership challenge - though they say he would - but that they were reactively responding to journalists’ questions about an unspecified coup.
And although they weren’t engaged in any grand plan to save the prime minister, they wanted to make the point to those contemplating a coup that any coup would damage market/investor confidence in the sustainability of UK government debt.
Shares in one of the world’s biggest technology investors plunged after it revealed it had sold its entire stake in Nvidia for $5.8bn (£4.4bn).
SoftBank sank as much as 10.1pc after it disclosed on Tuesday that it had offloaded its entire shareholding in the $4.7tn (£3.6tn) chip giant in October.
While its profits soared as a result of the sale, as much as 3.2 trillion yen (£15.7bn) was wiped off its market valuation during trading today. Shares eventually closed down 3.5pc, delivering a 1 trillion yen (£5.4bn) blow.
Nvidia shares dropped by 3pc on Wall Street, wiping $188.3bn (£143.3bn) off its total worth.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble
.
You’re an investor
These are all opportunities to make some money.
As I am 60 and retired I have been gradually switching my investments from equities to mixed assets/income fund/bonds and money market funds.
Meanwhile the FTSE nudges 10,000 !!
Yes, I have shifted my portfolio quite substantially more defensively over the last 6 months.
Pretty much everything looks overvalued to me at present with little upside potential.
I started shifting when I saw Warren Buffett was moving to cash. He’s the GOAT.
I see little upside in tech for sure.
I’m quite happy with my dividend portfolio.
Party is not over yet and last 6 months have been very good. I have reduced some risk but money is still in equities at the moment , I am up 12% so far this year.
Agreed. I think there's plenty more bubble before the burst.
(DYOR)
Indeed and we’re all at different stages of our journey. I’d tell someone like our friend 18 year old whose putting £25 a month into an S&S ISA stay 100% in equities.
Newly retired like me, I’ll gradually switch until I’m about 25% equities.
Shares in one of the world’s biggest technology investors plunged after it revealed it had sold its entire stake in Nvidia for $5.8bn (£4.4bn).
SoftBank sank as much as 10.1pc after it disclosed on Tuesday that it had offloaded its entire shareholding in the $4.7tn (£3.6tn) chip giant in October.
While its profits soared as a result of the sale, as much as 3.2 trillion yen (£15.7bn) was wiped off its market valuation during trading today. Shares eventually closed down 3.5pc, delivering a 1 trillion yen (£5.4bn) blow.
Nvidia shares dropped by 3pc on Wall Street, wiping $188.3bn (£143.3bn) off its total worth.
Downing Street sources tell me they were not pro-actively putting it out that the PM would fight fight and fight again against any leadership challenge - though they say he would - but that they were reactively responding to journalists’ questions about an unspecified coup.
And although they weren’t engaged in any grand plan to save the prime minister, they wanted to make the point to those contemplating a coup that any coup would damage market/investor confidence in the sustainability of UK government debt.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
It was splattered all over the place years before it happened, just another set of grifters. You can bet that the lawyers will be getting funded out of some public quango charity.
Lots of women have been crowdfunding it too.
At least my Mum and mother in law will be winners if the payout comes from my taxes.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Sorry, how would they find the Implementation was illegal when WASPI have lost every previous court case and the ombudsman spoke about maladministration only over a decade after the law was changed ?
It also said it was only a recommendation, it could not compel the govt, and there was no obligation on the govt to tell people about changes to the benefit system
My pension age has changed twice. I’ve had no letter. Am I entitled to a handout
Given I lose a month's pension compared to those borne the day before me, I'm thinking of starting a Born on the 6th of the Month protest group. BOTSOTM - may need to work on that acronym.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
I’d be due to “retire” at 67 in 2044, and I reckon it will be 70 by the time I get there in 2047. There’s way too much money that can be saved by pushing the pension age by a year every decade.
It’s bizarre that a government with 410 seats should be a lame duck, after just 18 months.
310 MPs who had an understanding of the world, of the problems this country faces, of the powers and limitations of government would have been far better than the 410 MPs Labour has.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble, fall of the US system of government, etc etc
Its being so cheerful that keeps me going.
Worse than that, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is optimistic.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
Property is always a long term game. Getting such significant changes through in a little over a year is remarkably quick; it is the biggest set of changes since 1988. "Renters Rights" organisations (who I have criticised previously) think it is a major success.
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
Thousands of NHS staff redundancies in England will now go ahead after a deal was reached with the Treasury to allow the health service to overspend this year to cover the cost of pay-offs.
The government said earlier this year 18,000 admin and managerial jobs would go with NHS England, the body that runs the NHS, being brought into the Department of Health and Social Care alongside cuts to local health boards.
NHS bosses and health ministers had been in talks with the Treasury over how to pay for the £1bn one-off bill with the health service wanting extra money.
The Treasury blocked that, but the BBC understands a compromise has been reached with the NHS permitted to overspend this year.
Downing Street sources tell me they were not pro-actively putting it out that the PM would fight fight and fight again against any leadership challenge - though they say he would - but that they were reactively responding to journalists’ questions about an unspecified coup.
And although they weren’t engaged in any grand plan to save the prime minister, they wanted to make the point to those contemplating a coup that any coup would damage market/investor confidence in the sustainability of UK government debt.
"Vote for me otherwise the markets will be upset" just confirms that the market is in charge, not Starmer. We *really* need to pay off the debt, or at least enough of it to reduce the pressure to manageable levels.
It'll get no traction. Unless Starmer's in the Epstein file.
Politics - indeed world news - is going to be dominated as of today by the fall of Trump, the 25th Amendment, the rise of dead duck President J D Vance. The airbrushing from history of the Epstein associates. The anger of MAGA at how they've been used. The quiet clear-out of Republicans who supported Trump, either by not standing again or by the wrath of the voters.
Strap up for a hell of a ride...
I don't think today will see the fall of Trump.
Just saying.
Its going to be spectacular when it happens, but not yet on the cards.
Honestly think he will die before his fall, if that makes sense. He isn't a healthy man, despite what the spin is about his health checks...
Downing Street sources tell me they were not pro-actively putting it out that the PM would fight fight and fight again against any leadership challenge - though they say he would - but that they were reactively responding to journalists’ questions about an unspecified coup.
And although they weren’t engaged in any grand plan to save the prime minister, they wanted to make the point to those contemplating a coup that any coup would damage market/investor confidence in the sustainability of UK government debt.
"Vote for me otherwise the markets will be upset" just confirms that the market is in charge, not Starmer. We *really* need to pay off the debt, or at least enough of it to reduce the pressure to manageable levels.
Why am I reminded of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the sherif *takes himself hostage*
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Sorry, how would they find the Implementation was illegal when WASPI have lost every previous court case and the ombudsman spoke about maladministration only over a decade after the law was changed ?
It also said it was only a recommendation, it could not compel the govt, and there was no obligation on the govt to tell people about changes to the benefit system
My pension age has changed twice. I’ve had no letter. Am I entitled to a handout
Given I lose a month's pension compared to those borne the day before me, I'm thinking of starting a Born on the 6th of the Month protest group. BOTSOTM - may need to work on that acronym.
You could use BJOWLS.. Born Just Outside When Lucky Sods...
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Sorry, how would they find the Implementation was illegal when WASPI have lost every previous court case and the ombudsman spoke about maladministration only over a decade after the law was changed ?
It also said it was only a recommendation, it could not compel the govt, and there was no obligation on the govt to tell people about changes to the benefit system
My pension age has changed twice. I’ve had no letter. Am I entitled to a handout
Given I lose a month's pension compared to those borne the day before me, I'm thinking of starting a Born on the 6th of the Month protest group. BOTSOTM - may need to work on that acronym.
Thousands of NHS staff redundancies in England will now go ahead after a deal was reached with the Treasury to allow the health service to overspend this year to cover the cost of pay-offs.
The government said earlier this year 18,000 admin and managerial jobs would go with NHS England, the body that runs the NHS, being brought into the Department of Health and Social Care alongside cuts to local health boards.
NHS bosses and health ministers had been in talks with the Treasury over how to pay for the £1bn one-off bill with the health service wanting extra money.
The Treasury blocked that, but the BBC understands a compromise has been reached with the NHS permitted to overspend this year.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble, fall of the US system of government, etc etc
Its being so cheerful that keeps me going.
Worse than that, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is optimistic.
Shares in one of the world’s biggest technology investors plunged after it revealed it had sold its entire stake in Nvidia for $5.8bn (£4.4bn).
SoftBank sank as much as 10.1pc after it disclosed on Tuesday that it had offloaded its entire shareholding in the $4.7tn (£3.6tn) chip giant in October.
While its profits soared as a result of the sale, as much as 3.2 trillion yen (£15.7bn) was wiped off its market valuation during trading today. Shares eventually closed down 3.5pc, delivering a 1 trillion yen (£5.4bn) blow.
Nvidia shares dropped by 3pc on Wall Street, wiping $188.3bn (£143.3bn) off its total worth.
At some point this merry-go-round of tens and hundreds of billions of AI dollars is going to all come crashing down, the only question is when.
I’ve heard suggestions that it could run a bear market for the next decade, but then there’s the story of OpenAI talking to the US government. I reckon they might be one of the first to drop out.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Sorry, how would they find the Implementation was illegal when WASPI have lost every previous court case and the ombudsman spoke about maladministration only over a decade after the law was changed ?
It also said it was only a recommendation, it could not compel the govt, and there was no obligation on the govt to tell people about changes to the benefit system
My pension age has changed twice. I’ve had no letter. Am I entitled to a handout
Isnt a Judicial Review about process, rather than the decision itself?
In order for the WASPI case to be refused the govrrnment has to show that all relevant information was reviewed when making the decision.
A JR can decide that a matter has to be done again because of a failure/illegality/omission etc in the process - this is often because governments have hamstrung themselves with obscure laws which bind them especially since WWII. A JR can also say that a decision is illegal, and so void, in itself because it breaks the law.
That government can't break its own laws and when it does it will obey the courts is a difference between us and North Korea, Russia, and now of course the USA.
One of the most interesting questions for a Reform government will be how it approaches this.
Absolutely this.
WASPI women aren't popular people because of their exaggerated demands for money but that doesn't remove the fact the previous government and the DWP badly botched the pension age increase, resulting in a number of women losing income for several months when they might have made other arrangements. And the fact people aren't necessarily on top of their finances isn't an excuse for government not following the proper processes.
Tough shit. Its all about fairness. Women getting to retire 5 years earlier than men who would be likelier to die earlier was never fair. The changes were not overnight, there was information in the media, on the TV etc. The overblown stories of hardship are frankly pathetic.
As I said yesterday - they can have a payout if they agree to a tatoo on their foreheads saying "I am an idiot who didn't keep an eye on my retirement prospects nor follow the news so please give me working people's taxes to play for my lack of care and attention".
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
I’d be due to “retire” at 67 in 2044, and I reckon it will be 70 by the time I get there in 2047. There’s way too much money that can be saved by pushing the pension age by a year every decade.
Downing Street sources tell me they were not pro-actively putting it out that the PM would fight fight and fight again against any leadership challenge - though they say he would - but that they were reactively responding to journalists’ questions about an unspecified coup.
And although they weren’t engaged in any grand plan to save the prime minister, they wanted to make the point to those contemplating a coup that any coup would damage market/investor confidence in the sustainability of UK government debt.
"Vote for me otherwise the markets will be upset" just confirms that the market is in charge, not Starmer. We *really* need to pay off the debt, or at least enough of it to reduce the pressure to manageable levels.
Yet we have Andy Burnham saying we should tell the bond markets to sod off and hand out more welfare.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble, fall of the US system of government, etc etc
Its being so cheerful that keeps me going.
Worse than that, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is optimistic.
Downing Street sources tell me they were not pro-actively putting it out that the PM would fight fight and fight again against any leadership challenge - though they say he would - but that they were reactively responding to journalists’ questions about an unspecified coup.
And although they weren’t engaged in any grand plan to save the prime minister, they wanted to make the point to those contemplating a coup that any coup would damage market/investor confidence in the sustainability of UK government debt.
"Vote for me otherwise the markets will be upset" just confirms that the market is in charge, not Starmer. We *really* need to pay off the debt, or at least enough of it to reduce the pressure to manageable levels.
I don't disagree, but how do we get from here to there?
"Vote for me and I'll make painful spending cuts and put your taxes up, but after ten years the national debt and debt interest bill will be way down and the country will be in a much better place," is a message that only receives a positive hearing on PB.com. And even here I think it's a minority view.
I think I'd struggle to reduce government spending overall. I think I could make some cuts, but there are too many areas where I see a need for extra spending (Defence, Justice and Infrastructure for starters). And I'd put myself on the fiscal hawk side.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
I’d be due to “retire” at 67 in 2044, and I reckon it will be 70 by the time I get there in 2047. There’s way too much money that can be saved by pushing the pension age by a year every decade.
Don’t you get a lower pension being abroad too ?
There’s a weird rule that if you move abroad when claiming a pension then it gets frozen in money terms, and I’ve been buying NI topups that should help with the total amount, but I’m working on the assumption that I end up with little to nothing from the UK State by way of pension.
Thousands of NHS staff redundancies in England will now go ahead after a deal was reached with the Treasury to allow the health service to overspend this year to cover the cost of pay-offs.
The government said earlier this year 18,000 admin and managerial jobs would go with NHS England, the body that runs the NHS, being brought into the Department of Health and Social Care alongside cuts to local health boards.
NHS bosses and health ministers had been in talks with the Treasury over how to pay for the £1bn one-off bill with the health service wanting extra money.
The Treasury blocked that, but the BBC understands a compromise has been reached with the NHS permitted to overspend this year.
Give it about a year and see how many of those who have been given redundancy have been employed in the new DHSC structure running the NHS in (checks notes) England. You could almost call it DHSC (NHS England).
Thousands of NHS staff redundancies in England will now go ahead after a deal was reached with the Treasury to allow the health service to overspend this year to cover the cost of pay-offs.
The government said earlier this year 18,000 admin and managerial jobs would go with NHS England, the body that runs the NHS, being brought into the Department of Health and Social Care alongside cuts to local health boards.
NHS bosses and health ministers had been in talks with the Treasury over how to pay for the £1bn one-off bill with the health service wanting extra money.
The Treasury blocked that, but the BBC understands a compromise has been reached with the NHS permitted to overspend this year.
Downing Street sources tell me they were not pro-actively putting it out that the PM would fight fight and fight again against any leadership challenge - though they say he would - but that they were reactively responding to journalists’ questions about an unspecified coup.
And although they weren’t engaged in any grand plan to save the prime minister, they wanted to make the point to those contemplating a coup that any coup would damage market/investor confidence in the sustainability of UK government debt.
"Vote for me otherwise the markets will be upset" just confirms that the market is in charge, not Starmer. We *really* need to pay off the debt, or at least enough of it to reduce the pressure to manageable levels.
I don't disagree, but how do we get from here to there?
"Vote for me and I'll make painful spending cuts and put your taxes up, but after ten years the national debt and debt interest bill will be way down and the country will be in a much better place," is a message that only receives a positive hearing on PB.com. And even here I think it's a minority view.
I think I'd struggle to reduce government spending overall. I think I could make some cuts, but there are too many areas where I see a need for extra spending (Defence, Justice and Infrastructure for starters). And I'd put myself on the fiscal hawk side.
It’s very much true economically, but almost impossible politically in an environment where there’s an election every five years.
You’re not going to make significant savings in TME without looking seriously at the scope of the State. Health and welfare are the two biggies, followed by debt interest.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
No end till they face reality and cut spending , start living within their means, at worst the IMF will force it when they need bailed out from bankruptcy.
Worth a watch. Whatever one's view of Streeting, there's no doubt that he's considerably more fluent and engaging than Starmer - not a high bar, I acknowledge; but Streeting's a very good, media performer who seems to have his finger on the cultural pulse, with references to Traitors etc.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
It was splattered all over the place years before it happened, just another set of grifters. You can bet that the lawyers will be getting funded out of some public quango charity.
Lots of women have been crowdfunding it too.
Lots of people got stuffed when they raised it to 66 & 67, they stole some of my money , so if WASPI's deserve cash so should all of poor sods that expected it at 65 and had a year or 2 years stolen.
On topic, I'm inclined to think that Starmer does not have that much to worry about. He still has a huge majority, he still has opposition which is one lot of ranting flim-flam men, and a collection of washed-up nonentities having a punch up with themselves.
He's still at the "very little of our initiatives have had time to show any benefits" stage. That will change, but the comms are still so crap that no one may notice any benefits even if the UK suddenly turns into heaven on earth.
In a mischievous moment, I half wonder whether the whole "L-l-l-l-l-leadership in Doubt" thing is a self-generated squirrel to distract the anti-Starmer forces on all sides for 6 or 12 months.
Thousands of NHS staff redundancies in England will now go ahead after a deal was reached with the Treasury to allow the health service to overspend this year to cover the cost of pay-offs.
The government said earlier this year 18,000 admin and managerial jobs would go with NHS England, the body that runs the NHS, being brought into the Department of Health and Social Care alongside cuts to local health boards.
NHS bosses and health ministers had been in talks with the Treasury over how to pay for the £1bn one-off bill with the health service wanting extra money.
The Treasury blocked that, but the BBC understands a compromise has been reached with the NHS permitted to overspend this year.
Most people get the government minimum, as ever feather bedded terms for government gilded lily workers. If they are so free with our cash then they should make the same terms as minimum for everyone made redundant.
He points out that the "letter before action" came from the same lawyer who mugged the mainstream channels in the USA, from what he calls the "Trump libel industrial complex".
His view has aspects of "hang tough and wait for the TACO, when Trump loses interest". But I think they underplay the context of the internal dynamics around the BBC board and the delays in statements etc, and the politics of various campaigns to undermine the BBC.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
The planning reforms have been amended away to nothing. There is no serious reform left.
Yes a bill might be done by the end of the year (which is too little, too late) but look at the bill and it is nothing credible.
A few powers handed to Mayors and . . . ??? Bugger all really.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
I’d be due to “retire” at 67 in 2044, and I reckon it will be 70 by the time I get there in 2047. There’s way too much money that can be saved by pushing the pension age by a year every decade.
Don’t you get a lower pension being abroad too ?
There’s a weird rule that if you move abroad when claiming a pension then it gets frozen in money terms, and I’ve been buying NI topups that should help with the total amount, but I’m working on the assumption that I end up with little to nothing from the UK State by way of pension.
I thought it all depended on the country you went to. Believe many get all the raises , Australia was one where you don't.
Thousands of NHS staff redundancies in England will now go ahead after a deal was reached with the Treasury to allow the health service to overspend this year to cover the cost of pay-offs.
The government said earlier this year 18,000 admin and managerial jobs would go with NHS England, the body that runs the NHS, being brought into the Department of Health and Social Care alongside cuts to local health boards.
NHS bosses and health ministers had been in talks with the Treasury over how to pay for the £1bn one-off bill with the health service wanting extra money.
The Treasury blocked that, but the BBC understands a compromise has been reached with the NHS permitted to overspend this year.
How many workers in the rest of the economy would get that much for being made redundant.
How many of these NHS England redundant workers will then be get another job in the NHS ?
The jobs they are doing currently - do you really think they will all vanish?
There is a reason that a trope in Yes Minister is that reorganisations and mergers of departments are great, because it allows the head count to grow massively....
Shares in one of the world’s biggest technology investors plunged after it revealed it had sold its entire stake in Nvidia for $5.8bn (£4.4bn).
SoftBank sank as much as 10.1pc after it disclosed on Tuesday that it had offloaded its entire shareholding in the $4.7tn (£3.6tn) chip giant in October.
While its profits soared as a result of the sale, as much as 3.2 trillion yen (£15.7bn) was wiped off its market valuation during trading today. Shares eventually closed down 3.5pc, delivering a 1 trillion yen (£5.4bn) blow.
Nvidia shares dropped by 3pc on Wall Street, wiping $188.3bn (£143.3bn) off its total worth.
At some point this merry-go-round of tens and hundreds of billions of AI dollars is going to all come crashing down, the only question is when.
I’ve heard suggestions that it could run a bear market for the next decade, but then there’s the story of OpenAI talking to the US government. I reckon they might be one of the first to drop out.
Will depend on how many jobs AI replaces , any low end customer service type job, admin etc is doomed.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
I’d be due to “retire” at 67 in 2044, and I reckon it will be 70 by the time I get there in 2047. There’s way too much money that can be saved by pushing the pension age by a year every decade.
Don’t you get a lower pension being abroad too ?
There’s a weird rule that if you move abroad when claiming a pension then it gets frozen in money terms, and I’ve been buying NI topups that should help with the total amount, but I’m working on the assumption that I end up with little to nothing from the UK State by way of pension.
I thought it all depended on the country you went to. Believe many get all the raises , Australia was one where you don't.
Perhaps outside the EU, when that was a thing. Can’t say I’ve looked into it too much, I work on the assumption that there won’t be much of a state pension when I retire, especially I continue to live abroad, or that at best there might be something means-tested rather than today’s universal entitlement.
Shares in one of the world’s biggest technology investors plunged after it revealed it had sold its entire stake in Nvidia for $5.8bn (£4.4bn).
SoftBank sank as much as 10.1pc after it disclosed on Tuesday that it had offloaded its entire shareholding in the $4.7tn (£3.6tn) chip giant in October.
While its profits soared as a result of the sale, as much as 3.2 trillion yen (£15.7bn) was wiped off its market valuation during trading today. Shares eventually closed down 3.5pc, delivering a 1 trillion yen (£5.4bn) blow.
Nvidia shares dropped by 3pc on Wall Street, wiping $188.3bn (£143.3bn) off its total worth.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
Property is always a long term game. Getting such significant changes through in a little over a year is remarkably quick; it is the biggest set of changes since 1988. "Renters Rights" organisations (who I have criticised previously) think it is a major success.
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
All very interesting but do you think.....
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election?
Politically they have stalled on this, even if there are lots of good reasons why they were likely to do so.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
I’d be due to “retire” at 67 in 2044, and I reckon it will be 70 by the time I get there in 2047. There’s way too much money that can be saved by pushing the pension age by a year every decade.
Don’t you get a lower pension being abroad too ?
There’s a weird rule that if you move abroad when claiming a pension then it gets frozen in money terms, and I’ve been buying NI topups that should help with the total amount, but I’m working on the assumption that I end up with little to nothing from the UK State by way of pension.
That's by individual treaty with each country, aiui. So it can be mitigated by location.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
Property is always a long term game. Getting such significant changes through in a little over a year is remarkably quick; it is the biggest set of changes since 1988. "Renters Rights" organisations (who I have criticised previously) think it is a major success.
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
I agree with the conclusion but what a shame that when we know the problems, the proposed planning bill is doing bugger all to address these problems.
Huh, that wesforleader website template is entirely unbranded. Unless I'm missing something (possible!), there's no indication of who built it at all, not even in the comments.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
The planning reforms have been amended away to nothing. There is no serious reform left.
Yes a bill might be done by the end of the year (which is too little, too late) but look at the bill and it is nothing credible.
A few powers handed to Mayors and . . . ??? Bugger all really.
The simple truth is Fear of Doing.
The government can use primary legislation to fiat into existence new towns, reservoirs etc. But they won't.
They could announce the end of leasehold by lunchtime. But they won't.
What a mess Labour are in with Starmer and Reeves making Truss look good and delivering a slow motion economic disaster and turning in on themselves
Many would sit back with a smug expression but not me
This is a deadly serious crisis for the country and we have 3 more years of it
What makes you think only 3 more years of it?
It is highly likely that the next government of any colour will struggle as much. The demographic challenges, the run down nature of all public services, the desolation of town centres, the stagnant productivity, the rule of the pluto-gerontocracy over the over-burdened young, the lack of any economic strength outside financial services in London, the military and environmental challenges etc.
None of these end when Starmer and Reeves go, to be replaced by Farage and Tice. Sure, we will fly a few more flags as the ship sinks ever lower in the water, but there won't be a magic cure. We are 10 years on from Farage's last magic cure of Brexit and look how that has improved the nation.
Oh, and I didn't mention the forthcoming worldwide recession, higher interest rates, stock market bubble
.
You’re an investor
These are all opportunities to make some money.
As I am 60 and retired I have been gradually switching my investments from equities to mixed assets/income fund/bonds and money market funds.
Meanwhile the FTSE nudges 10,000 !!
Yes, I have shifted my portfolio quite substantially more defensively over the last 6 months.
Pretty much everything looks overvalued to me at present with little upside potential.
I started shifting when I saw Warren Buffett was moving to cash. He’s the GOAT.
I see little upside in tech for sure.
I’m quite happy with my dividend portfolio.
Party is not over yet and last 6 months have been very good. I have reduced some risk but money is still in equities at the moment , I am up 12% so far this year.
I’ll still retain a portion of equities Malc, from the portion of my SIPP that is longer term, but fewer of them and I do like my dividend stocks and steadier stocks. I’m at the stage where I’m moving to preserve capital. I’m not touching my SIPPs at the moment. I’m still running down my ‘fuck you’ money. But I’m wary of pound cost ravaging and I’ve not seen how this AI is monetised yet.
Yes agree , I have been moving more of mine to lower risk and have large amount in money markets and balanced funds now. Certainly need to be careful when you have reached targets , I am getting close to stage I will never be able to spend the money unless I live past 100.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
The planning reforms have been amended away to nothing. There is no serious reform left.
Yes a bill might be done by the end of the year (which is too little, too late) but look at the bill and it is nothing credible.
A few powers handed to Mayors and . . . ??? Bugger all really.
They had the opportunity to take an axe to planning controls and building regs, and to legislate for several new towns, but have chosen to do nothing instead.
So many of us expected the new lot to actually turn up on Day 1 with plans for each department, but there’s been almost nothing despite the huge majority.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
The planning reforms have been amended away to nothing. There is no serious reform left.
Yes a bill might be done by the end of the year (which is too little, too late) but look at the bill and it is nothing credible.
A few powers handed to Mayors and . . . ??? Bugger all really.
They had the opportunity to take an axe to planning controls and building regs, and to legislate for several new towns, but have chosen to do nothing instead.
So many of us expected the new lot to actually turn up on Day 1 with plans for each department, but there’s been almost nothing despite the huge majority.
Really tear up the constitution - and appoint King Charles as Planning Minister.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
1. I'll take your word for it. 2. That is not in any way 'getting us back on track' - it will excacerbate housing costs in the short term and could lead to massive US venture capital takeovers of housing stock in the longer term. 3. Whether this is 'back on track', except literally, remains to be seen. Changing the ownership of something is not in and of itself a beneficial development. 4. A small reduction in waiting lists is to be welcomed 5. Onshore wind in Scotland is largely a racket, as well as being a visual blight. I don't consider that to be 'back on track' but enjoy. 6. Got to be the worst Chancellor of our lifetimes.
Re:#2 in your list.
Lloyds, having milked HMG for Motability for years, have now set their sights on being a large providers of rented accommodation. Some 7000+ homes at a valuation of £2bn already after 4 years and ambitions to grow larger. Targeting the commuter belt so don't expect an affordable home in that area for a while or rents to go down.
On the other hand, if it all goes belly up, they'll be back to HMG (again)
If they were investing to build new homes that would be mostly good, but instead they’re just buying up existing homes, which does nothing except keep prices higher.
Reportedly Build-to-Rent. Also John Lewis are doing the same. The (micro) entrepreneurs in this area will find there will be more hoops to jump through.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
Property is always a long term game. Getting such significant changes through in a little over a year is remarkably quick; it is the biggest set of changes since 1988. "Renters Rights" organisations (who I have criticised previously) think it is a major success.
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
All very interesting but do you think.....
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election?
Politically they have stalled on this, even if there are lots of good reasons why they were likely to do so.
As a general comment, very little will change by the next election. Nothing happens that quickly in housing. The shortest realistic timescale for anything sustainable is a decade.
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? No. At target time I called it as 1 million will be good, 1.25 million will be seen as a big success. Especially as the next election will be after ~4.5 years, not 5. It will be an argument about forecasts.
Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? It depends what you mean by "struggling", and to whom you are referring. Everybody always says they are struggling, regardless of what circumstances are. Listen to all the home counties retirees complaining about council services not getting better when Council funding is 1/4-1/3 below what it was. Yet more expensive cars on driveways are everywhere, and most of us still go abroad most years.
Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? See my general comment.
Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election? That could possibly be mitigated by a tax rebalancing (eg Proportional Property Tax which incorporates removal of Stamp Duty alongside a 0.5% of value Council Tax), or other quite tactical measures such as addressing under-occupied spare bedrooms in the owner occupied sector by further incentivising lodgers as an alternative to pied-a-terre flats.
It is important to note that property prices have significantly rebalanced already, which is part of the journey.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
1. I'll take your word for it. 2. That is not in any way 'getting us back on track' - it will excacerbate housing costs in the short term and could lead to massive US venture capital takeovers of housing stock in the longer term. 3. Whether this is 'back on track', except literally, remains to be seen. Changing the ownership of something is not in and of itself a beneficial development. 4. A small reduction in waiting lists is to be welcomed 5. Onshore wind in Scotland is largely a racket, as well as being a visual blight. I don't consider that to be 'back on track' but enjoy. 6. Got to be the worst Chancellor of our lifetimes.
Re:#2 in your list.
Lloyds, having milked HMG for Motability for years, have now set their sights on being a large providers of rented accommodation. Some 7000+ homes at a valuation of £2bn already after 4 years and ambitions to grow larger. Targeting the commuter belt so don't expect an affordable home in that area for a while or rents to go down.
On the other hand, if it all goes belly up, they'll be back to HMG (again)
If they were investing to build new homes that would be mostly good, but instead they’re just buying up existing homes, which does nothing except keep prices higher.
Reportedly Build-to-Rent. Also John Lewis are doing the same. The (micro) entrepreneurs in this area will find there will be more hoops to jump through.
Cue surprise that as regulation and taxation get more complicated, the advantage of large companies in a market grows.
Shall we set our reminders for about 3 years time, when Panorama does a program on people fighting against giant corporate landlords, based off shore, with infinite lawyers?
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
Property is always a long term game. Getting such significant changes through in a little over a year is remarkably quick; it is the biggest set of changes since 1988. "Renters Rights" organisations (who I have criticised previously) think it is a major success.
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
All very interesting but do you think.....
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election?
Politically they have stalled on this, even if there are lots of good reasons why they were likely to do so.
As a general comment, very little will change by the next election. Nothing happens that quickly in housing. The shortest realistic timescale for anything sustainable is a decade.
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? No. At target time I called it as 1 million will be good, 1.25 million will be seen as a big success. Especially as the next election will be after ~4.5 years, not 5. It will be an argument about forecasts.
Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? It depends what you mean by "struggling", and to whom you are referring. Everybody always says they are struggling, regardless of what circumstances are. Listen to all the home counties retirees complaining about council services not getting better when Council funding is 1/4-1/3 below what it was. Yet more expensive cars on driveways are everywhere, and most of us still go abroad most years.
Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? See my general comment.
Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election? That could possibly be mitigated by a tax rebalancing (eg Proportional Property Tax which incorporates removal of Stamp Duty alongside a 0.5% of value Council Tax), or other quite tactical measures such as addressing under-occupied spare bedrooms in the owner occupied sector by further incentivising lodgers as an alternative to pied-a-terre flats.
It is important to note that property prices have significantly rebalanced already, which is part of the journey.
What’s this significant rebalancing you speak of? Things overall look pretty static.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
Property is always a long term game. Getting such significant changes through in a little over a year is remarkably quick; it is the biggest set of changes since 1988. "Renters Rights" organisations (who I have criticised previously) think it is a major success.
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
I agree with the conclusion but what a shame that when we know the problems, the proposed planning bill is doing bugger all to address these problems.
I'm honestly not up to date with where the Planning Bill is; I've had more focus on the Renters Rights Act.
I liked the initial proposals, but you know that I take a more small-c conservative approach than your preference.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
Property is always a long term game. Getting such significant changes through in a little over a year is remarkably quick; it is the biggest set of changes since 1988. "Renters Rights" organisations (who I have criticised previously) think it is a major success.
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
All very interesting but do you think.....
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election?
Politically they have stalled on this, even if there are lots of good reasons why they were likely to do so.
As a general comment, very little will change by the next election. Nothing happens that quickly in housing. The shortest realistic timescale for anything sustainable is a decade.
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? No. At target time I called it as 1 million will be good, 1.25 million will be seen as a big success. Especially as the next election will be after ~4.5 years, not 5. It will be an argument about forecasts.
Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? It depends what you mean by "struggling", and to whom you are referring. Everybody always says they are struggling, regardless of what circumstances are. Listen to all the home counties retirees complaining about council services not getting better when Council funding is 1/4-1/3 below what it was. Yet more expensive cars on driveways are everywhere, and most of us still go abroad most years.
Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? See my general comment.
Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election? That could possibly be mitigated by a tax rebalancing (eg Proportional Property Tax which incorporates removal of Stamp Duty alongside a 0.5% of value Council Tax), or other quite tactical measures such as addressing under-occupied spare bedrooms in the owner occupied sector by further incentivising lodgers as an alternative to pied-a-terre flats.
It is important to note that property prices have significantly rebalanced already, which is part of the journey.
Nothing happens that quickly in housing.
Well Rayner and Reeves managed to drive construction into a recession quick enough:
The S&P Global UK Construction PMI fell to 44.1 in October of 2025 from 46.2 in the previous month, below market expectations of 46.7 to reflect a tenth consecutive contraction in British construction activity. The rate of contraction was the sharpest since May of 2020. Construction firms continued to report poor market conditions and fewer tender opportunities. Consequently, employment in the sector dropped at the sharpest pace in over five years, in addition to lesser subcontractor usage. The poor demand drove costs of input materials to drop. Civil engineering works plummeted from the previous month (35.4), with surveyees reporting a lack of new work to replace previously completed projects. Declines were also observed for residential construction (43.6) and commercial building activity (46.3).
Some insane cognitive dissonance going on about Trump meeting Ahmad Al-Sharaa. Imagine the hysterics if someone like Harris, Biden etc had invited him into the Oval Office.
No PM would be popular right now, especially so if they were trying to do the right thing and get the country back on track.
He has tried planning reform but effots appear to have stalled. He has tried welfare reform but ended up with a bill to spend more. What else is there? What is it that you think he is doing to get us 'back on track'?
FPT.
Planning hasn't stalled - its getting done by end of the year. Renters rights bill has passed - huge deal for people who rent (ie no one on this forum). Bringing railways back into public ownership. NHS waiting lists falling (not much but a little). Got onshore wind going again.
But the biggest thing i think is we have a sensible chancellor who is grappling with the difficult fiscal decisions rather than doing unfunded tax cuts and pretending all will be okay.
They completely messed up welfare reform though.
Lets see. As a (rare pb?) renter who supports rebalancing the relationship away from landlords to tenants, the renters rights bill seems like a mess. Taking a third of your parliamentary term to get planning changes through is stalling if you are committing to record housebuilding, and that is if does happen by the end of the year. And will the chancellor actually make some bold decisions and raise an extra £50bn+ or just tinker at the margins?
They have been far too timid and cautious which worked fine when seeking power but is a terrible strategy that pleases no-one when in government.
Property is always a long term game. Getting such significant changes through in a little over a year is remarkably quick; it is the biggest set of changes since 1988. "Renters Rights" organisations (who I have criticised previously) think it is a major success.
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
All very interesting but do you think.....
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election?
Politically they have stalled on this, even if there are lots of good reasons why they were likely to do so.
As a general comment, very little will change by the next election. Nothing happens that quickly in housing. The shortest realistic timescale for anything sustainable is a decade.
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election? No. At target time I called it as 1 million will be good, 1.25 million will be seen as a big success. Especially as the next election will be after ~4.5 years, not 5. It will be an argument about forecasts.
Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election? It depends what you mean by "struggling", and to whom you are referring. Everybody always says they are struggling, regardless of what circumstances are. Listen to all the home counties retirees complaining about council services not getting better when Council funding is 1/4-1/3 below what it was. Yet more expensive cars on driveways are everywhere, and most of us still go abroad most years.
Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election? See my general comment.
Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election? That could possibly be mitigated by a tax rebalancing (eg Proportional Property Tax which incorporates removal of Stamp Duty alongside a 0.5% of value Council Tax), or other quite tactical measures such as addressing under-occupied spare bedrooms in the owner occupied sector by further incentivising lodgers as an alternative to pied-a-terre flats.
It is important to note that property prices have significantly rebalanced already, which is part of the journey.
What rebalancing?
House price to earnings ratios are still atrociously high, I don't see any evidence of them coming back down to a reasonable level.
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
I’d be due to “retire” at 67 in 2044, and I reckon it will be 70 by the time I get there in 2047. There’s way too much money that can be saved by pushing the pension age by a year every decade.
Don’t you get a lower pension being abroad too ?
There’s a weird rule that if you move abroad when claiming a pension then it gets frozen in money terms, and I’ve been buying NI topups that should help with the total amount, but I’m working on the assumption that I end up with little to nothing from the UK State by way of pension.
I thought it all depended on the country you went to. Believe many get all the raises , Australia was one where you don't.
Perhaps outside the EU, when that was a thing. Can’t say I’ve looked into it too much, I work on the assumption that there won’t be much of a state pension when I retire, especially I continue to live abroad, or that at best there might be something means-tested rather than today’s universal entitlement.
These are the current countries where someone living will receive increases to the state pension.
(Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the most notable exceptions where you'd imagine British people might be moving to. Notable that the US is a country where British pensioners will receive an annual increase in the state pension.)
But, like you say, who knows what the rules will be in the 2050s, or what form the state pension will take?
Now Labour have arrived at favouring tge WASPI women, they really have got to the "we'll just spaff public money on any old chancers" stage. Depressing it took less than 18 months. They just cannot say no.
To be fair, I *hope* that the WASPI review will be 'yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision'.
But I may just be being overly optimistic.
Politically it's probably better for this government to let the judicial review run with the likely finding that the pension age increase implementation was illegal, even though it will cost more than to compensate WASPI now.
Which is what your "yes, we have now looked at the new information - as we are required to do - but no, there is no change to the decision" actually means, and why they might do it.
Having said that, the whole policy being judged illegal is a can of worms they likely want to head off. No good options for the government here.
The ombudsman has not found the policy to be illegal. They’ve found that the WASPI women were not sufficiently informed of the change.
Indeed, as my recollection was that the courts up to the Supreme Court found that the government had taken reasonable steps to inform the ladies of the change in pension age, which they were able to mitigate in any case by not retiring at 60. The ombudsman result seems to fly in the face of that, but I admit I haven't paid much attention to the detail or why the decision was different
I have always been aware that my pension age has increased to 67, in fact at one point I think 68 was proposed but the government moved the dates back a bit
It’s 68 from 2044 and is currently under review due to report back by 2029.
I’d be due to “retire” at 67 in 2044, and I reckon it will be 70 by the time I get there in 2047. There’s way too much money that can be saved by pushing the pension age by a year every decade.
Don’t you get a lower pension being abroad too ?
There’s a weird rule that if you move abroad when claiming a pension then it gets frozen in money terms, and I’ve been buying NI topups that should help with the total amount, but I’m working on the assumption that I end up with little to nothing from the UK State by way of pension.
I thought it all depended on the country you went to. Believe many get all the raises , Australia was one where you don't.
Perhaps outside the EU, when that was a thing. Can’t say I’ve looked into it too much, I work on the assumption that there won’t be much of a state pension when I retire, especially I continue to live abroad, or that at best there might be something means-tested rather than today’s universal entitlement.
Streeting is now the betting fav for Next PM and I think that's right. He's my bet at 8/1 and I like that bet. This isn't a policy or competence problem it's about public persona and comms. Starmer is unable to forge a connection with the public. It's just one of those things. If he is replaced it will be for this reason and therefore the replacement will be driven accordingly. Not principally a left v right (of the party) question but who of the realistic alternatives is the best communicator. That's Streeting (by miles) and so I think he'll get it. Value at anything over 4 imo.
It's worth a note that I have unusually not seen any Ref UK Councillors defenestrating in the last 10 days or so.
There's the usual background of "Oops did I really say that the police now are a bunch of politically indoctrinated British hating scum (amongst other things), immediately before I was elected" stuff, but not defenestrations.
I'm not sure whether they have all gone away on a team building exercise around a re-enactment of the assault on the Ehrenfels by the Calcutta Light Horse in 1943 (Operation Creek * aka The Goa Incident), or just run head on into the budgetary process.
The last time I looked at the change numbers was about 30 days since the end of conference, and ignoring the conference specials it was approximately evens in and out for RefUK since then.
Checking, since the start of Nov, transfers involving RefUK are as below. It's level from Ind / Con / Byelections. Obvious caveats are small samples, and this log page being when they log it not the date of the change etc.
Totals. Ref Losses: 3. Ref Gains: 9
Ref -> Con: 1 Ref -> Ind: 1 Ref -> Vacant: 1
Con -> Ref 3 Ind -> Ref 3 Vacant -> Ref 3
A few days ago I made it part way through building an SS to analyse that log page to give a table by pairs of parties, but did not have time to finish it.
Quick calc of councillor attrition since Aug 1st.
Reform lost 30 councillors of 861 they had, a 3.5% attrition in 3 months. They gained 97 in the same period (inward defections plus elections)
Labour lost 110 councillors of 6056 they had, a 1.8% attrition in 3 months. They gained 14 in the same period.
There is somewhat higher attrition and this is of newer councillors.
Streeting is now the betting fav for Next PM and I think that's right. He's my bet at 8/1 and I like that bet. This isn't a policy or competence problem it's about public persona and comms. Starmer is unable to forge a connection with the public. It's just one of those things. If he is replaced it will be for this reason and therefore the replacement will be driven accordingly. Not principally a left v right (of the party) question but who of the realistic alternatives is the best communicator. That's Streeting (by miles) and so I think he'll get it. Value at anything over 4 imo.
More importantly, he's good for my book.
I bet on him years ago. He has the right chromosomes to become Labour leader.
Streeting is now the betting fav for Next PM and I think that's right. He's my bet at 8/1 and I like that bet. This isn't a policy or competence problem it's about public persona and comms. Starmer is unable to forge a connection with the public. It's just one of those things. If he is replaced it will be for this reason and therefore the replacement will be driven accordingly. Not principally a left v right (of the party) question but who of the realistic alternatives is the best communicator. That's Streeting (by miles) and so I think he'll get it. Value at anything over 4 imo.
Streeting is great, agreed it's not left vs right, it's able to communicate vs not. I'd be very happy if he took over.
Keir proved himself an opportunist and an inept one. He jumped on an anti semite bandwagon which then developed a life of its own and turned into full McCarthyism. He hollowed out his Party just like Johnson had.
Even Diane Abbott perhaps the person who most understood the nature of racism was singled out and disgraced. It was The French revolution Starmer-McSweeny style.
"From the River to the Sea lets have EQUALITY"was now sufficient for instant dismissal as an unfortunate Labour candidate found a few weeks before polling......
But then one of those weird things happened that makes even fate sceptics question.... Israel began the most vicious genocide most of us have wittnessed. "From the River to the Sea" became a new rallying cry but this time for Israeli Ministers to describe their dreams of ethnic cleansing.......
(.....I wonder whether Abbott and all those candidates cast aside or sent to re-education classes laughed or cried?)
......I hope he goes. The Left have for most of my life been a bastion against racism. Starmer is no longer someone I trust to keep that going. Whether through ignorance or ambition I don't know or care . But I want Farage and his Ilk stopped and starmer isn't the person to do it.
Comments
Lloyds, having milked HMG for Motability for years, have now set their sights on being a large providers of rented accommodation. Some 7000+ homes at a valuation of £2bn already after 4 years and ambitions to grow larger. Targeting the commuter belt so don't expect an affordable home in that area for a while or rents to go down.
On the other hand, if it all goes belly up, they'll be back to HMG (again)
Just because Trump behaves like that it doesn’t mean everyone does
Russian story “Discounts on Russian oil have risen to their highest level since the beginning of the year”
https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/1988505519288397998
International sanctions are working on Russian O&G exports, and Ukranian kinetic sanctions are disrupting the domestic market. The latest one is apparently regional governments trying to set a ceiling price on petrol and diesel, and we all know how that ends.
WASPI women aren't popular people because of their exaggerated demands for money but that doesn't remove the fact the previous government and the DWP badly botched the pension age increase, resulting in a number of women losing income for several months when they might have made other arrangements. And the fact people aren't necessarily on top of their finances isn't an excuse for government not following the proper processes.
Can’t think why everyone isn’t cheering.
Streeting denies plotting against PM after leadership claims
He added that briefings to the press against him were "the worst attack on a faithful since Joe Marler was banished in The Traitors final".
"Someone has definitely been watching too much Celebrity Traitors. They should swap to Countryfile," he said.
He added that Lucy Powell, the party's new deputy leader, was "right about the culture in No 10" adding: "I'd like to commend the briefer on at least picking on one of the men in the cabinet instead of the women."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v124znrgmo
WASPI have always been a shakedown for compensation. They accept it won’t go back to 60
The Backto60 lot want full restitution and, suffice to say, are daggers drawn with the WASPI lot
There is also the CEDAW in Law lot.
Barbara Rich Substack on it.
https://x.com/barbararich_law/status/1874024004933005414?s=61
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1988506515678884012
https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3m5f22srxuc25
A consequence of the Renters Rights Bill.
Small landlords exit,the market, and some see that as good, and large ones buy property en masse. Blackstone and L&G, who’ve also built to let, being two others,
Checking, since the start of Nov, transfers involving RefUK are as below. It's level from Ind / Con / Byelections. Obvious caveats are small samples, and this log page being when they log it not the date of the change etc.
Totals. Ref Losses: 3. Ref Gains: 9
Ref -> Con: 1
Ref -> Ind: 1
Ref -> Vacant: 1
Con -> Ref 3
Ind -> Ref 3
Vacant -> Ref 3
A few days ago I made it part way through building an SS to analyse that log page to give a table by pairs of parties, but did not have time to finish it.
(DYOR)
Downing Street sources tell me they were not pro-actively putting it out that the PM would fight fight and fight again against any leadership challenge - though they say he would - but that they were reactively responding to journalists’ questions about an unspecified coup.
And although they weren’t engaged in any grand plan to save the prime minister, they wanted to make the point to those contemplating a coup that any coup would damage market/investor confidence in the sustainability of UK government debt.
SoftBank sank as much as 10.1pc after it disclosed on Tuesday that it had offloaded its entire shareholding in the $4.7tn (£3.6tn) chip giant in October.
While its profits soared as a result of the sale, as much as 3.2 trillion yen (£15.7bn) was wiped off its market valuation during trading today. Shares eventually closed down 3.5pc, delivering a 1 trillion yen (£5.4bn) blow.
Nvidia shares dropped by 3pc on Wall Street, wiping $188.3bn (£143.3bn) off its total worth.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/12/artificial-intelligence-ai-markets-ftse-100-gilts/
Newly retired like me, I’ll gradually switch until I’m about 25% equities.
https://youtu.be/4umc87T5UMs?si=ZU-YH4TJn9XV4Fcg
And it will be 5 years before we know how well it has succeeded.
For developers the system has to be both intensely tactical and intensely strategic at the same time.
That is because it can take years to get anything through planning, and parish pump politics or random national politics means it can happen quickly - with intense pressure to build it NOW as planning permission turns into a pumpkin in 3 years (unless innovative measures taken which impose other restrictions), or it can take a decade if the local Council are so minded.
And maintaining a building organisation, workforce etc through that is very difficult. The buffers that are needed are insane.
So there's a need for long term landbanks to anticipate all possible future paths, and maintain the workforce capable of building to a high quality, and a guessing game as to what will happen. And there needs to be the project margin to absorb all possible outcomes.
And small builders cannot afford to play that game.
I can point you to an industrial estate locally next to the "edge of town retail park" which when I checked was still owned by Tesco, left over from the mad expansion period decades ago when they were a) Looking for a supermarket site in this area of 80k people and b) Buying up sites to block competition.
Casual chatter to someone from say Savills or Innes England can supply insight on how that all works.
That's one area that needs to be simplified by stability in the short and long term planning system. It all adds costs to the bottom line, which I think none of us here want.
The government said earlier this year 18,000 admin and managerial jobs would go with NHS England, the body that runs the NHS, being brought into the Department of Health and Social Care alongside cuts to local health boards.
NHS bosses and health ministers had been in talks with the Treasury over how to pay for the £1bn one-off bill with the health service wanting extra money.
The Treasury blocked that, but the BBC understands a compromise has been reached with the NHS permitted to overspend this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w9y9dpv5qo
How many workers in the rest of the economy would get that much for being made redundant.
How many of these NHS England redundant workers will then be get another job in the NHS ?
I’ve heard suggestions that it could run a bear market for the next decade, but then there’s the story of OpenAI talking to the US government. I reckon they might be one of the first to drop out.
As I said yesterday - they can have a payout if they agree to a tatoo on their foreheads saying "I am an idiot who didn't keep an eye on my retirement prospects nor follow the news so please give me working people's taxes to play for my lack of care and attention".
"Vote for me and I'll make painful spending cuts and put your taxes up, but after ten years the national debt and debt interest bill will be way down and the country will be in a much better place," is a message that only receives a positive hearing on PB.com. And even here I think it's a minority view.
I think I'd struggle to reduce government spending overall. I think I could make some cuts, but there are too many areas where I see a need for extra spending (Defence, Justice and Infrastructure for starters). And I'd put myself on the fiscal hawk side.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/articles/nhs-redundancy-arrangements
Those are good questions.
From WHOIS:
Domain Information Name WESFORLEADER.COM
Registered On 2025-11-11T22:19:15Z
You’re not going to make significant savings in TME without looking seriously at the scope of the State. Health and welfare are the two biggies, followed by debt interest.
Wesforleader.co.uk and wesforleader.uk haven't got their HTTPS secure connection sorted out
Bangladesh are now 287-1 in reply to Ireland's 286.
And I had thought that Ireland were maybe a hundred runs short in their first innings, but I underestimated that a bit.
https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1988521750351540321?s=20
Universal reaction from Labour MPs and senior Labour insiders this morning. "McSweeney has to go". "Morgan McSweeney is toast".
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1988531182804324726?s=20
He's still at the "very little of our initiatives have had time to show any benefits" stage. That will change, but the comms are still so crap that no one may notice any benefits even if the UK suddenly turns into heaven on earth.
In a mischievous moment, I half wonder whether the whole "L-l-l-l-l-leadership in Doubt" thing is a self-generated squirrel to distract the anti-Starmer forces on all sides for 6 or 12 months.
But that would be a bit sophisticated.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/rachel-reeves-hike-booze-duties-pubs-beer-5HjdGjM_2/
Will the last pub standing please remember to turn the pumps off.
https://youtu.be/tMI1_jAQzQw?t=955
He points out that the "letter before action" came from the same lawyer who mugged the mainstream channels in the USA, from what he calls the "Trump libel industrial complex".
His view has aspects of "hang tough and wait for the TACO, when Trump loses interest". But I think they underplay the context of the internal dynamics around the BBC board and the delays in statements etc, and the politics of various campaigns to undermine the BBC.
Yes a bill might be done by the end of the year (which is too little, too late) but look at the bill and it is nothing credible.
A few powers handed to Mayors and . . . ??? Bugger all really.
There is a reason that a trope in Yes Minister is that reorganisations and mergers of departments are great, because it allows the head count to grow massively....
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election?
Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election?
Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election?
Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election?
Politically they have stalled on this, even if there are lots of good reasons why they were likely to do so.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-21/HL6703/
The government can use primary legislation to fiat into existence new towns, reservoirs etc. But they won't.
They could announce the end of leasehold by lunchtime. But they won't.
The government is in office. But not in power.
Certainly need to be careful when you have reached targets , I am getting close to stage I will never be able to spend the money unless I live past 100.
Deboarding - in.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1988542213354123673
Downing Street source tells me “we need to get Keir off the plane” ✈️
So many of us expected the new lot to actually turn up on Day 1 with plans for each department, but there’s been almost nothing despite the huge majority.
https://x.com/mattcartoonist/status/1988296141063287154
https://www.bisnow.com/london/news/multifamily/john-lewis-lloyds-btrac-119452
Will Labour build anywhere close to the 1.5m promise by the next election?
No. At target time I called it as 1 million will be good, 1.25 million will be seen as a big success. Especially as the next election will be after ~4.5 years, not 5. It will be an argument about forecasts.
Will housing costs for those struggling have increased or decreased by the next election?
It depends what you mean by "struggling", and to whom you are referring. Everybody always says they are struggling, regardless of what circumstances are. Listen to all the home counties retirees complaining about council services not getting better when Council funding is 1/4-1/3 below what it was. Yet more expensive cars on driveways are everywhere, and most of us still go abroad most years.
Will those wanting to start a family and needing more space find it easier by the next election?
See my general comment.
Will the handbroke on the economy from poor housing mobility be removed by the next election?
That could possibly be mitigated by a tax rebalancing (eg Proportional Property Tax which incorporates removal of Stamp Duty alongside a 0.5% of value Council Tax), or other quite tactical measures such as addressing under-occupied spare bedrooms in the owner occupied sector by further incentivising lodgers as an alternative to pied-a-terre flats.
It is important to note that property prices have significantly rebalanced already, which is part of the journey.
Shall we set our reminders for about 3 years time, when Panorama does a program on people fighting against giant corporate landlords, based off shore, with infinite lawyers?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/nov/07/uk-house-prices-rise-at-fastest-rate-since-january-2025
These people behind the scenes all seem determined to run government exactly as portrayed on The Thick of It.
I liked the initial proposals, but you know that I take a more small-c conservative approach than your preference.
Well Rayner and Reeves managed to drive construction into a recession quick enough:
The S&P Global UK Construction PMI fell to 44.1 in October of 2025 from 46.2 in the previous month, below market expectations of 46.7 to reflect a tenth consecutive contraction in British construction activity. The rate of contraction was the sharpest since May of 2020. Construction firms continued to report poor market conditions and fewer tender opportunities. Consequently, employment in the sector dropped at the sharpest pace in over five years, in addition to lesser subcontractor usage. The poor demand drove costs of input materials to drop. Civil engineering works plummeted from the previous month (35.4), with surveyees reporting a lack of new work to replace previously completed projects. Declines were also observed for residential construction (43.6) and commercial building activity (46.3).
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/construction-pmi
House price to earnings ratios are still atrociously high, I don't see any evidence of them coming back down to a reasonable level.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-pensions-annual-increases-if-you-live-abroad/countries-where-we-pay-an-annual-increase-in-the-state-pension
(Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the most notable exceptions where you'd imagine British people might be moving to. Notable that the US is a country where British pensioners will receive an annual increase in the state pension.)
But, like you say, who knows what the rules will be in the 2050s, or what form the state pension will take?
Reform lost 30 councillors of 861 they had, a 3.5% attrition in 3 months. They gained 97 in the same period (inward defections plus elections)
Labour lost 110 councillors of 6056 they had, a 1.8% attrition in 3 months. They gained 14 in the same period.
There is somewhat higher attrition and this is of newer councillors.
I've not done Con yet.
I bet on him years ago. He has the right chromosomes to become Labour leader.
Even Diane Abbott perhaps the person who most understood the nature of racism was singled out and disgraced. It was The French revolution Starmer-McSweeny style.
"From the River to the Sea lets have EQUALITY"was now sufficient for instant dismissal as an unfortunate Labour candidate found a few weeks before polling......
But then one of those weird things happened that makes even fate sceptics question.... Israel began the most vicious genocide most of us have wittnessed. "From the River to the Sea" became a new rallying cry but this time for Israeli Ministers to describe their dreams of ethnic cleansing.......
(.....I wonder whether Abbott and all those candidates cast aside or sent to re-education classes laughed or cried?)
......I hope he goes. The Left have for most of my life been a bastion against racism. Starmer is no longer someone I trust to keep that going. Whether through ignorance or ambition I don't know or care . But I want Farage and his Ilk stopped and starmer isn't the person to do it.