'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
I don't really get the antipathy toward Burnham in some Labour-sympathetic circles. It's lucky for you that anyone half decent actually wants to take over the Labour shitshow. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and talking yourself into sticking with Sir Security Risk.
The problem is that he *isn’t* half decent
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
PM is at least Emperor…
It would be interesting to see how his policies (as outlined by someone earlier) work out nationally. That £2 single cap on bus fares, for example - does he know how long some single journeys can be out in the sticks?
We had the £2 bus cap policy in place for 2023 and 2024 so we know how it works:
PBers who spent literally years obsessing over the pitiful Hunter Biden, claiming it somehow implicated his father, are remarkably silent about this stuff.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
The question on grift is whether the Trump Crime Syndicate manage to "acquire" billions or tens of billions illicitly. Going by things like this, I suspect comfortably the latter. Yet all he needs to do to get those concerned about government inefficiency and waste back on board is mention dei.
On one hand, you have to admit - they are impressively good at it. The scale is jaw-dropping.
But you do also have to hope a vindictive prosecutor comes in and takes every cent they have off the entire clan. Or perhaps do what MBS did - put them all under house arrest in a luxury hotel until they hand it over.
Putin was said to have amassed a fortune of $300bn as President of Russia over his first twenty years. So the Trumps are about an order of magnitude behind in their rate of corruption, which given that the US is more than an order of magnitude richer than Russia shows how much further Trump has to go to emulate his hero.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
The idea that borrowing costs won’t spike when this is tried is pure Liz Trussism.
The next step on the road is to demand that UK pension funds buy UK government bonds at a rate set by the U.K. government.
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
The US constitution may prevent him from a 3rd term as President, but does it preclude him from being the 1st Emperor of the United States of America, Canada and Greenland?
Leto Atreides, in God Emperor, was ruler for roughly 3.5k years as I recall. He turned into a worm and it has to be said that Trump may well be working on that.
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
The US constitution may prevent him from a 3rd term as President, but does it preclude him from being the 1st Emperor of the United States of America, Canada and Greenland?
Leto Atreides, in God Emperor, was ruler for roughly 10k years as I recall. He turned into a worm and it has to be said that Trump may well be working on that.
Leto II didn’t have memory issues. About forgetting stuff, anyway.
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
The US constitution may prevent him from a 3rd term as President, but does it preclude him from being the 1st Emperor of the United States of America, Canada and Greenland?
Leto Atreides, in God Emperor, was ruler for roughly 10k years as I recall. He turned into a worm and it has to be said that Trump may well be working on that.
Leto II didn’t have memory issues. About forgetting stuff, anyway.
Indeed. As I recall he could remember other peoples' lives, let alone his own.
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
The US constitution may prevent him from a 3rd term as President, but does it preclude him from being the 1st Emperor of the United States of America, Canada and Greenland?
Leto Atreides, in God Emperor, was ruler for roughly 3.5k years as I recall. He turned into a worm and it has to be said that Trump may well be working on that.
Tangent but time frames in fantasy and sci-fi can be interesting, especially when considering political or technological stability/stagnation versus real world change.
A thousand years ago, the Eastern Roman Empire was still cruising on the high of Basil II's reign (ended a year or so earlier) and was the most powerful place in Europe by some way. Three hundred and fifty years ago the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a very large and powerful nation in the east.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
The idea that borrowing costs won’t spike when this is tried is pure Liz Trussism.
The next step on the road is to demand that UK pension funds buy UK government bonds at a rate set by the U.K. government.
It’s all been done before.
The current (and past) fiscal rules are fantasy spreadsheeting and arbitrary anyway.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
My point is the wrong result of that referendum will now likely seriously damage the country, not just benefit one party. You don't need to tell me about the stupidity of our recent referendums...
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
My point is the wrong result of that referendum will now likely seriously damage the country, not just benefit one party. You don't need to tell me about the stupidity of our recent referendums...
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
It's hardly proportional when the number of seats a party wins depends on how many candidates it puts up.
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
The US constitution may prevent him from a 3rd term as President, but does it preclude him from being the 1st Emperor of the United States of America, Canada and Greenland?
Leto Atreides, in God Emperor, was ruler for roughly 3.5k years as I recall. He turned into a worm and it has to be said that Trump may well be working on that.
Tangent but time frames in fantasy and sci-fi can be interesting, especially when considering political or technological stability/stagnation versus real world change.
A thousand years ago, the Eastern Roman Empire was still cruising on the high of Basil II's reign (ended a year or so earlier) and was the most powerful place in Europe by some way. Three hundred and fifty years ago the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a very large and powerful nation in the east.
In fairness, even Basil II couldn't see the future, anticipate opponent's every move and see all the consequences of his actions. Leto II had a definite edge in that respect.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
The idea that borrowing costs won’t spike when this is tried is pure Liz Trussism.
The next step on the road is to demand that UK pension funds buy UK government bonds at a rate set by the U.K. government.
It’s all been done before.
The current (and past) fiscal rules are fantasy spreadsheeting and arbitrary anyway.
There is room to manoeuvre here imo.
That’s exactly what Liz Truss said.
The fiscal rules are for politicians to tell themselves “no” when they start looking at the biscuit barrel longingly.
If they get rid of those, the markets will know that the diet *ends* on Monday.
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
The US constitution may prevent him from a 3rd term as President, but does it preclude him from being the 1st Emperor of the United States of America, Canada and Greenland?
Leto Atreides, in God Emperor, was ruler for roughly 10k years as I recall. He turned into a worm and it has to be said that Trump may well be working on that.
Leto II didn’t have memory issues. About forgetting stuff, anyway.
Indeed. As I recall he could remember other peoples' lives, let alone his own.
IIRC he actually aggregated his ancestors *personalities* into his own.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
It is astonishing that we have achieved this without a recession. Government borrowing has taken up the slack and kept demand high. It is deeply depressing that it has done so little for our balance of payments.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
That MAYBE prefix I suspect would apply to three quarters of the list.
His big difficulty will be a lack of a mandate, the press will campaign vehemently against his programme.
I look forward to the repeated trite arguments about mandate we get every time a PM changes, as media and politicians engage in collective selective amnesia about their former positions on whether it should mean we go to the country soon or not.
But looking at recent history going for an election in 1-2 years is pretty common anyway.
Sunak - GE in under 2 years (and at max could only have gone in just over 2 years anyway) Truss - never got the chance Boris - GE within a year May - GE within a year Brown - GE within 3 years (maximum) Major - GE within 2 years
And Cameron? Blair?? Thatcher???
Cameron promised a referendum by 2017 in 2013, making it clear it was a matter for the UK voters. The moment his promise was delivered by way of result he then, at the critical moment, decided he hadn't got a mandate for what he had promised, was granted in the 2015 GE result, and affirmed in the referendum. The resulting chaos and general elections and turnover of leaders led directly from his failure to plan for only two outcomes and resignation.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
My point is the wrong result of that referendum will now likely seriously damage the country, not just benefit one party. You don't need to tell me about the stupidity of our recent referendums...
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
It's hardly proportional when the number of seats a party wins depends on how many candidates it puts up.
D'Hondt all the way!
Can you explain why the number of seats won under ANY voting system doesn't depend on the number of candidates put up?
I return to my point. Voting results should reflect what people actually voted for. FPTP fails on its one and only job. All forms of PR do better than that.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
Getting Malcolm and his mates (who are of course rightfully enjoying the fruits of their hard work as they enter their golden years unlike those lazy scrounging young toerags), to enjoy the fruits of their labour a bit more, would go a long way to helping our economy out. We have trillions in dead or moribund unproductive assets just festering.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
My point is the wrong result of that referendum will now likely seriously damage the country, not just benefit one party. You don't need to tell me about the stupidity of our recent referendums...
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
It's hardly proportional when the number of seats a party wins depends on how many candidates it puts up.
D'Hondt all the way!
Can you explain why the number of seats won under ANY voting system doesn't depend on the number of candidates put up?
I return to my point. Voting results should reflect what people actually voted for. FPTP fails on its one and only job. All forms of PR do better than that.
Your Party is ahead of the game here.
Don't put up any candidates. Don't get any votes. Don't win any seats.
That approach works whatever the electoral system.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
My point is the wrong result of that referendum will now likely seriously damage the country, not just benefit one party. You don't need to tell me about the stupidity of our recent referendums...
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
It's hardly proportional when the number of seats a party wins depends on how many candidates it puts up.
D'Hondt all the way!
Those voting for smaller parties will see their votes wasted under D’Hondt if the party fails to make the electoral threshold. Having some form of ordinality in the voting system, be that STV or adding panachage to D’Hondt, avoids that problem. Ordinality also allows voters, rather than parties, to determine which candidates of a party get elected.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
My point is the wrong result of that referendum will now likely seriously damage the country, not just benefit one party. You don't need to tell me about the stupidity of our recent referendums...
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
It's hardly proportional when the number of seats a party wins depends on how many candidates it puts up.
D'Hondt all the way!
Can you explain why the number of seats won under ANY voting system doesn't depend on the number of candidates put up?
I return to my point. Voting results should reflect what people actually voted for. FPTP fails on its one and only job. All forms of PR do better than that.
Your Party is ahead of the game here.
Don't put up any candidates. Don't get any votes. Don't win any seats.
That approach works whatever the electoral system.
To be pedantic, they are standing 20 candidates next week.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
The government is planning to borrow an additional about £550 billion between the start of current fiscal year and end of March 2031 on top of the trillions already borrowed and not paid back.
So as long as all this is being used for fruitful investment there is quite a lot available. But I think the reality is that it is being borrowed for electoral reasons in order to disguise current economic and fiscal reality and allow our grandchildren to pick up the bill. If Burnham has a set of policies covering the hard bits as well as the bits popular with MPs who don't like our grandchildren I think we should be told.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
A personal example might shed some light -
My uncle and aunt started their working lives in the late 50s. The “They’ve never had it so good” boom. And it was. Incomes, GDP, etc were roaring ahead.
Their response was to pay off the house as quick as possible, put money in pensions and save, save, save.
They kept the lifestyle of poorer people. Which they could do - because there was a gap.
The problem for many, today, is that they don’t have that option. All their money goes on rent, food and transport. They are already living in an HMO - so they can’t economise further on housing. They have no gap. No choices.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
That MAYBE prefix I suspect would apply to three quarters of the list.
His big difficulty will be a lack of a mandate, the press will campaign vehemently against his programme.
I look forward to the repeated trite arguments about mandate we get every time a PM changes, as media and politicians engage in collective selective amnesia about their former positions on whether it should mean we go to the country soon or not.
But looking at recent history going for an election in 1-2 years is pretty common anyway.
Sunak - GE in under 2 years (and at max could only have gone in just over 2 years anyway) Truss - never got the chance Boris - GE within a year May - GE within a year Brown - GE within 3 years (maximum) Major - GE within 2 years
And Cameron? Blair?? Thatcher???
Cameron promised a referendum by 2017 in 2013, making it clear it was a matter for the UK voters. The moment his promise was delivered by way of result he then, at the critical moment, decided he hadn't got a mandate for what he had promised, was granted in the 2015 GE result, and affirmed in the referendum. The resulting chaos and general elections and turnover of leaders led directly from his failure to plan for only two outcomes and resignation.
It is astonishing how he seems to have got away with what was by some way the most irresponsible action (his resignation, rather than the referendum itself) taken by a prime minister in living memory.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
My point is the wrong result of that referendum will now likely seriously damage the country, not just benefit one party. You don't need to tell me about the stupidity of our recent referendums...
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
It's hardly proportional when the number of seats a party wins depends on how many candidates it puts up.
D'Hondt all the way!
Can you explain why the number of seats won under ANY voting system doesn't depend on the number of candidates put up?
I return to my point. Voting results should reflect what people actually voted for. FPTP fails on its one and only job. All forms of PR do better than that.
Your Party is ahead of the game here.
Don't put up any candidates. Don't get any votes. Don't win any seats.
That approach works whatever the electoral system.
To be pedantic, they are standing 20 candidates next week.
Running against each other and calling the rival Your Party candidates class traitors?
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
The idea that borrowing costs won’t spike when this is tried is pure Liz Trussism.
The next step on the road is to demand that UK pension funds buy UK government bonds at a rate set by the U.K. government.
It’s all been done before.
The current (and past) fiscal rules are fantasy spreadsheeting and arbitrary anyway.
There is room to manoeuvre here imo.
That’s exactly what Liz Truss said.
The fiscal rules are for politicians to tell themselves “no” when they start looking at the biscuit barrel longingly.
If they get rid of those, the markets will know that the diet *ends* on Monday.
I am not saying don't have fiscal rules, I am saying that the markets have a little bit of intelligence. They know the current arrangements are a sub optimal sham - they will judge new arrangements on their merits. Truss's had very few so got sent straight to trash.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
My point is the wrong result of that referendum will now likely seriously damage the country, not just benefit one party. You don't need to tell me about the stupidity of our recent referendums...
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
It's hardly proportional when the number of seats a party wins depends on how many candidates it puts up.
D'Hondt all the way!
Can you explain why the number of seats won under ANY voting system doesn't depend on the number of candidates put up?
I return to my point. Voting results should reflect what people actually voted for. FPTP fails on its one and only job. All forms of PR do better than that.
At the risk of descending into NIM NIM NIM I like this voting system, yours is rubbish NIM NIM NIM:
STV is the best system for GEs, followed by FPTP, followed by AV, followed by d'Hondt.
This is partly driven by gut feel, but I notice it tallies with how much control voters - rather than parties - have to elect (and remove) individual MPs.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
Getting Malcolm and his mates (who are of course rightfully enjoying the fruits of their hard work as they enter their golden years unlike those lazy scrounging young toerags), to enjoy the fruits of their labour a bit more, would go a long way to helping our economy out. We have trillions in dead or moribund unproductive assets just festering.
That chart linked upthread with the surge in money in cash ISA’s from around late 2021 is stark.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
The idea that borrowing costs won’t spike when this is tried is pure Liz Trussism.
The next step on the road is to demand that UK pension funds buy UK government bonds at a rate set by the U.K. government.
It’s all been done before.
The current (and past) fiscal rules are fantasy spreadsheeting and arbitrary anyway.
There is room to manoeuvre here imo.
That’s exactly what Liz Truss said.
The fiscal rules are for politicians to tell themselves “no” when they start looking at the biscuit barrel longingly.
If they get rid of those, the markets will know that the diet *ends* on Monday.
Liz Truss explicitly said that she could force the bond market to accept a lower rate of interest in order to help fund more borrowing and cut taxes.
That's a little different to an argument over borrowing to invest to generate a return that can service the extra debt with extra tax income in the future.
Where I think the argument struggles is that Britain is borrowing to pay the interest on its existing debt (and possibly still borrowing to pay for current expenditure). So the argument, "we're borrowing to invest," risks being heard as, "we're borrowing to avoid difficult decisions on matching expenditure to income," either by spending cuts or tax rises.
Speaking of investment, Britain apparently has a shiny new railway but cannot manage to organise passenger trains to run on it. What is the story with East-West rail?
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
A personal example might shed some light -
My uncle and aunt started their working lives in the late 50s. The “They’ve never had it so good” boom. And it was. Incomes, GDP, etc were roaring ahead.
Their response was to pay off the house as quick as possible, put money in pensions and save, save, save.
They kept the lifestyle of poorer people. Which they could do - because there was a gap.
The problem for many, today, is that they don’t have that option. All their money goes on rent, food and transport. They are already living in an HMO - so they can’t economise further on housing. They have no gap. No choices.
Except according to the stats we are saving more than ever before, and the biggest saving boom has happened in the 2 decades since the financial crisis, and accelerated this decade. In fact until 2008 we were leveraging more and more. People were not paying off their debts at pace in the 80s and 90s, they were growing them. So your uncle and aunt were very unusual.
What really helped that generation was not so much thrift and saving (consumer spending and credit went up massively) but house price inflation. The market did the thrift for them.
And the huge surge in cash ISA funds has happened since Covid.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
I'm guessing said economist was not in the position of many young families who decide not to have kids because of housing constraints, further deepening our demographic problems as well as mental health and happiness. Who thinks that balances out because they get some extra wealth around their sixties when their parents die? Apart from academic economists and HYUFD.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
A personal example might shed some light -
My uncle and aunt started their working lives in the late 50s. The “They’ve never had it so good” boom. And it was. Incomes, GDP, etc were roaring ahead.
Their response was to pay off the house as quick as possible, put money in pensions and save, save, save.
They kept the lifestyle of poorer people. Which they could do - because there was a gap.
The problem for many, today, is that they don’t have that option. All their money goes on rent, food and transport. They are already living in an HMO - so they can’t economise further on housing. They have no gap. No choices.
Except according to the stats we are saving more than ever before, and the biggest saving boom has happened in the 2 decades since the financial crisis, and accelerated this decade. In fact until 2008 we were leveraging more and more. People were not paying off their debts at pace in the 80s and 90s, they were growing them. So your uncle and aunt were very unusual.
And the huge surge in cash ISA funds has happened since Covid.
Segmentation - between those who got into property before the madness (for example)
If you are 48, no mortgage, combined income well into 6 figures, kids left home. Well, you are looking at maintaining lifestyle on retirement. So you are saving like crazy.
If you are 23, living in an HMO, and rent, food and transport takes 95% of your post tax income, not so much.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
A personal example might shed some light -
My uncle and aunt started their working lives in the late 50s. The “They’ve never had it so good” boom. And it was. Incomes, GDP, etc were roaring ahead.
Their response was to pay off the house as quick as possible, put money in pensions and save, save, save.
They kept the lifestyle of poorer people. Which they could do - because there was a gap.
The problem for many, today, is that they don’t have that option. All their money goes on rent, food and transport. They are already living in an HMO - so they can’t economise further on housing. They have no gap. No choices.
Except according to the stats we are saving more than ever before, and the biggest saving boom has happened in the 2 decades since the financial crisis, and accelerated this decade. In fact until 2008 we were leveraging more and more. People were not paying off their debts at pace in the 80s and 90s, they were growing them. So your uncle and aunt were very unusual.
And the huge surge in cash ISA funds has happened since Covid.
I am trying to build up a shit ton in savings to address the questions of a) how the actual fuck am I going to subsist in my old age in the absence of the pensions my parent's generation enjoyed, and b) how the actual fuck are my daughters going to afford anywhere to live or any sort of tertiary education, should they want it, in the way that I enjoyed. I don't know how this sort of thing is reflected in the figures.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
That MAYBE prefix I suspect would apply to three quarters of the list.
His big difficulty will be a lack of a mandate, the press will campaign vehemently against his programme.
I look forward to the repeated trite arguments about mandate we get every time a PM changes, as media and politicians engage in collective selective amnesia about their former positions on whether it should mean we go to the country soon or not.
But looking at recent history going for an election in 1-2 years is pretty common anyway.
Sunak - GE in under 2 years (and at max could only have gone in just over 2 years anyway) Truss - never got the chance Boris - GE within a year May - GE within a year Brown - GE within 3 years (maximum) Major - GE within 2 years
And Cameron? Blair?? Thatcher???
Cameron promised a referendum by 2017 in 2013, making it clear it was a matter for the UK voters. The moment his promise was delivered by way of result he then, at the critical moment, decided he hadn't got a mandate for what he had promised, was granted in the 2015 GE result, and affirmed in the referendum. The resulting chaos and general elections and turnover of leaders led directly from his failure to plan for only two outcomes and resignation.
It is astonishing how he seems to have got away with what was by some way the most irresponsible action (his resignation, rather than the referendum itself) taken by a prime minister in living memory.
Yes. It's right at the top of the list. Other candidates are the series of decisions which ultimately enabled freedom of movement with no brakes for a population of 500,000,000, allowing the EU to become an increasingly political union not a free trade area with rules, and allowing the UK population to watch other countries hold referenda on these developments while denying them to us. Going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan are high up. Selling but not building social housing has been catastrophic. There are lots of other candidates.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
Getting Malcolm and his mates (who are of course rightfully enjoying the fruits of their hard work as they enter their golden years unlike those lazy scrounging young toerags), to enjoy the fruits of their labour a bit more, would go a long way to helping our economy out. We have trillions in dead or moribund unproductive assets just festering.
That chart linked upthread with the surge in money in cash ISA’s from around late 2021 is stark.
Hundreds of billions tied up in cash ISA’s.
Do you think banks treat cash ISAs differently from deposits when it comes to their loans (i.e. investments)?
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
A personal example might shed some light -
My uncle and aunt started their working lives in the late 50s. The “They’ve never had it so good” boom. And it was. Incomes, GDP, etc were roaring ahead.
Their response was to pay off the house as quick as possible, put money in pensions and save, save, save.
They kept the lifestyle of poorer people. Which they could do - because there was a gap.
The problem for many, today, is that they don’t have that option. All their money goes on rent, food and transport. They are already living in an HMO - so they can’t economise further on housing. They have no gap. No choices.
Except according to the stats we are saving more than ever before, and the biggest saving boom has happened in the 2 decades since the financial crisis, and accelerated this decade. In fact until 2008 we were leveraging more and more. People were not paying off their debts at pace in the 80s and 90s, they were growing them. So your uncle and aunt were very unusual.
What really helped that generation was not so much thrift and saving (consumer spending and credit went up massively) but house price inflation. The market did the thrift for them.
And the huge surge in cash ISA funds has happened since Covid.
The surge in savings doesn't really tally with the dominant narrative of a country in economic crisis, so I think you have to be a bit careful with the use of "we". I suspect that there's a substantial minority, maybe 10-20%, who are doing very well, and that has the effect of flattering the aggregate figures when the large majority are not in such a happy situation.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
There are a few politically toxic but economically interesting policies that it would be fun to experiment with in a virtual world.
One would be a 100% IHT and dividend policy. All assets at death taken by the state, and distributed out equally to everyone of voting age annually.
In theory this would trigger big spending increases: the recipients spending their windfall, and more importantly the elderly rapidly spending their nest eggs to keep them out of the clutches of the state.
It would, though, drive an exodus of elderly wealthy from the country so would get Laffered away.
(Similar to the carbon tax and dividend policy mooted as an alternative to carbon credits).
The other is a ISA and pension system with tax benefits limited to investments with a risk beta over a certain level. Would lead to increased spending and increased investments in risky assets.
Here’s a thought that made a political consultant turn pale when I suggested it to him.
When you make a promise to subsidise the *production* of something - such as Wh of zero emission power for vehicles (batteries without naming the tech) - you do it via a kind of government security.
So if you produce nothing, you get no return. If you produce something, you get a subsidy per Watt Hour, scaled according to U.K. content.
Why make it a government security? - well, it makes changing/abolishing it a default. Tying the hands of your successors.
And they would cost next to nothing to issue *now* - but 10 years down the line the money becomes due.
The ultimate cheap boiled sweet of government finance.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
I'm guessing said economist was not in the position of many young families who decide not to have kids because of housing constraints, further deepening our demographic problems as well as mental health and happiness. Who thinks that balances out because they get some extra wealth around their sixties when their parents die? Apart from academic economists and HYUFD.
Well I agree with all that. And I'd also note that wealth at that generation is unevenly distributed. Some are the only children of millionaires. It's fine for those people.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
Getting Malcolm and his mates (who are of course rightfully enjoying the fruits of their hard work as they enter their golden years unlike those lazy scrounging young toerags), to enjoy the fruits of their labour a bit more, would go a long way to helping our economy out. We have trillions in dead or moribund unproductive assets just festering.
That chart linked upthread with the surge in money in cash ISA’s from around late 2021 is stark.
Hundreds of billions tied up in cash ISA’s.
'Tied up' is misleading. All saving, except in a sock under the bed, is someone else's spending.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
A personal example might shed some light -
My uncle and aunt started their working lives in the late 50s. The “They’ve never had it so good” boom. And it was. Incomes, GDP, etc were roaring ahead.
Their response was to pay off the house as quick as possible, put money in pensions and save, save, save.
They kept the lifestyle of poorer people. Which they could do - because there was a gap.
The problem for many, today, is that they don’t have that option. All their money goes on rent, food and transport. They are already living in an HMO - so they can’t economise further on housing. They have no gap. No choices.
Except according to the stats we are saving more than ever before, and the biggest saving boom has happened in the 2 decades since the financial crisis, and accelerated this decade. In fact until 2008 we were leveraging more and more. People were not paying off their debts at pace in the 80s and 90s, they were growing them. So your uncle and aunt were very unusual.
And the huge surge in cash ISA funds has happened since Covid.
I am trying to build up a shit ton in savings to address the questions of a) how the actual fuck am I going to subsist in my old age in the absence of the pensions my parent's generation enjoyed, and b) how the actual fuck are my daughters going to afford anywhere to live or any sort of tertiary education, should they want it, in the way that I enjoyed. I don't know how this sort of thing is reflected in the figures.
I think that’s exactly the sort of thing that has driven it. No coincidence the big surges came after the financial crisis and Covid. Risk aversion. The Japan story.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
I'm guessing said economist was not in the position of many young families who decide not to have kids because of housing constraints, further deepening our demographic problems as well as mental health and happiness. Who thinks that balances out because they get some extra wealth around their sixties when their parents die? Apart from academic economists and HYUFD.
I'm in favour of more babies and support the removal of the two child limit.
I've also had a look at 2 generations back of my family where there were 21 great aunts/uncles (42 if they married). Seems you could afford large families then when we were substantially poorer but not now. Are children just out of fashion?
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
I'm guessing said economist was not in the position of many young families who decide not to have kids because of housing constraints, further deepening our demographic problems as well as mental health and happiness. Who thinks that balances out because they get some extra wealth around their sixties when their parents die? Apart from academic economists and HYUFD.
I'm in favour of more babies and support the removal of the two child limit.
I've also had a look at 2 generations back of my family where there were 21 great aunts/uncles (42 if they married). Seems you could afford large families then when we were substantially poorer but not now. Are children just out of fashion?
children used to be expected to contribute to the household as soon as they were housetrained, now they are increasingly infantalised until their early 20s.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
I'm guessing said economist was not in the position of many young families who decide not to have kids because of housing constraints, further deepening our demographic problems as well as mental health and happiness. Who thinks that balances out because they get some extra wealth around their sixties when their parents die? Apart from academic economists and HYUFD.
I'm in favour of more babies and support the removal of the two child limit.
I've also had a look at 2 generations back of my family where there were 21 great aunts/uncles (42 if they married). Seems you could afford large families then when we were substantially poorer but not now. Are children just out of fashion?
They are a lot more expensive. Hang around til mid twenties (housing). Informal shared childcare arrangements far less likely, some would now be illegal. Less self sufficient, no paper rounds/Saturday jobs from early teens. Football is now an activity requiring parents to cough up for several DBS checked coaches, not what kids do all summer every day without supervision. Etc, etc.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
I'm guessing said economist was not in the position of many young families who decide not to have kids because of housing constraints, further deepening our demographic problems as well as mental health and happiness. Who thinks that balances out because they get some extra wealth around their sixties when their parents die? Apart from academic economists and HYUFD.
I'm in favour of more babies and support the removal of the two child limit.
I've also had a look at 2 generations back of my family where there were 21 great aunts/uncles (42 if they married). Seems you could afford large families then when we were substantially poorer but not now. Are children just out of fashion?
They are a lot more expensive. Hang around til mid twenties (housing). Informal shared childcare arrangements far less likely, some would now be illegal. Less self sufficient, no paper rounds/Saturday jobs from early teens. Football is now an activity requiring parents to cough up for several DBS checked coaches, not what kids do all summer every day without supervision. Etc, etc.
You are Socrates and I claim my £5.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
There was one economist that suggested that rising house prices were not a problem, as there would be a massive transfer from the old to the next generation as the post-war bulge dies off. Perhaps time to increase IHT to claw back all the money the PWB didn't contribute.
I'm guessing said economist was not in the position of many young families who decide not to have kids because of housing constraints, further deepening our demographic problems as well as mental health and happiness. Who thinks that balances out because they get some extra wealth around their sixties when their parents die? Apart from academic economists and HYUFD.
I'm in favour of more babies and support the removal of the two child limit.
I've also had a look at 2 generations back of my family where there were 21 great aunts/uncles (42 if they married). Seems you could afford large families then when we were substantially poorer but not now. Are children just out of fashion?
children used to be expected to contribute to the household as soon as they were housetrained, now they are increasingly infantalised until their early 20s.
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
The US constitution may prevent him from a 3rd term as President, but does it preclude him from being the 1st Emperor of the United States of America, Canada and Greenland?
Leto Atreides, in God Emperor, was ruler for roughly 3.5k years as I recall. He turned into a worm and it has to be said that Trump may well be working on that.
Tangent but time frames in fantasy and sci-fi can be interesting, especially when considering political or technological stability/stagnation versus real world change.
A thousand years ago, the Eastern Roman Empire was still cruising on the high of Basil II's reign (ended a year or so earlier) and was the most powerful place in Europe by some way. Three hundred and fifty years ago the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a very large and powerful nation in the east.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
Getting Malcolm and his mates (who are of course rightfully enjoying the fruits of their hard work as they enter their golden years unlike those lazy scrounging young toerags), to enjoy the fruits of their labour a bit more, would go a long way to helping our economy out. We have trillions in dead or moribund unproductive assets just festering.
That chart linked upthread with the surge in money in cash ISA’s from around late 2021 is stark.
Hundreds of billions tied up in cash ISA’s.
Do you think banks treat cash ISAs differently from deposits when it comes to their loans (i.e. investments)?
Yes, I know they do, they take it the deposits, put them in a large sock under a giant bed for a rainy day 🙄
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
Getting Malcolm and his mates (who are of course rightfully enjoying the fruits of their hard work as they enter their golden years unlike those lazy scrounging young toerags), to enjoy the fruits of their labour a bit more, would go a long way to helping our economy out. We have trillions in dead or moribund unproductive assets just festering.
That chart linked upthread with the surge in money in cash ISA’s from around late 2021 is stark.
Hundreds of billions tied up in cash ISA’s.
'Tied up' is misleading. All saving, except in a sock under the bed, is someone else's spending.
I’m aware of that. I was thinking from a saving and investing perspective.
People can do what they want but I’d think that money could be more productively deployed in other asset classes in a tax efficient wrapper.
PBers who spent literally years obsessing over the pitiful Hunter Biden, claiming it somehow implicated his father, are remarkably silent about this stuff.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
The question on grift is whether the Trump Crime Syndicate manage to "acquire" billions or tens of billions illicitly. Going by things like this, I suspect comfortably the latter. Yet all he needs to do to get those concerned about government inefficiency and waste back on board is mention dei.
I’m not a fan of an act of attainment, but in this case it could be justified….
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
One of the main reasons the government is borrowing is that businesses and households are saving. The hoarding is getting to old Mr Harmon levels.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
Guessing that is down primarily to the rise in inequality of wealth? The rich can't spend it fast enough.
Wealth inequality has increased with over half of that being through house price changes, and almost all is age related (income inequality has actually reduced). Older people with paid up mortgages and surplus assets, younger people unable to borrow to buy houses. But some of it also seems to be a greater propensity to save across the age ranges.
Getting Malcolm and his mates (who are of course rightfully enjoying the fruits of their hard work as they enter their golden years unlike those lazy scrounging young toerags), to enjoy the fruits of their labour a bit more, would go a long way to helping our economy out. We have trillions in dead or moribund unproductive assets just festering.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
It depends what your borrowing for. Borrowing to invest is the only way we can make significant improvements from here imo. Most policies that will improve things that we are not already trying have upfront costs and delayed payoffs.
Borrowing to invest is fine.
Borrowing MORE to invest is not
Bluntly we need to cut current spending and raise taxes to bring the current account into balance. we can then afford to borrow 1-2% of gbp for government investment
Comments
The next step on the road is to demand that UK pension funds buy UK government bonds at a rate set by the U.K. government.
It’s all been done before.
A thousand years ago, the Eastern Roman Empire was still cruising on the high of Basil II's reign (ended a year or so earlier) and was the most powerful place in Europe by some way. Three hundred and fifty years ago the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a very large and powerful nation in the east.
There is room to manoeuvre here imo.
Parties not putting up a full slate under STV isn't remotely as distorting as FPTP, nor in any real sense "gaming" the system. Every serious form of PR is better than FPTP.
These 2 stats, posted yesterday, show the household part of it. But British business sweats assets too.
https://x.com/frencheconomics/status/2050143909817299301?s=46
D'Hondt all the way!
The fiscal rules are for politicians to tell themselves “no” when they start looking at the biscuit barrel longingly.
If they get rid of those, the markets will know that the diet *ends* on Monday.
I return to my point. Voting results should reflect what people actually voted for. FPTP fails on its one and only job. All forms of PR do better than that.
Getting Malcolm and his mates (who are of course rightfully enjoying the fruits of their hard work as they enter their golden years unlike those lazy scrounging young toerags), to enjoy the fruits of their labour a bit more, would go a long way to helping our economy out. We have trillions in dead or moribund unproductive assets just festering.
Don't put up any candidates.
Don't get any votes.
Don't win any seats.
That approach works whatever the electoral system.
So as long as all this is being used for fruitful investment there is quite a lot available. But I think the reality is that it is being borrowed for electoral reasons in order to disguise current economic and fiscal reality and allow our grandchildren to pick up the bill. If Burnham has a set of policies covering the hard bits as well as the bits popular with MPs who don't like our grandchildren I think we should be told.
My uncle and aunt started their working lives in the late 50s. The “They’ve never had it so good” boom. And it was. Incomes, GDP, etc were roaring ahead.
Their response was to pay off the house as quick as possible, put money in pensions and save, save, save.
They kept the lifestyle of poorer people. Which they could do - because there was a gap.
The problem for many, today, is that they don’t have that option. All their money goes on rent, food and transport. They are already living in an HMO - so they can’t economise further on housing. They have no gap. No choices.
STV is the best system for GEs, followed by FPTP, followed by AV, followed by d'Hondt.
This is partly driven by gut feel, but I notice it tallies with how much control voters - rather than parties - have to elect (and remove) individual MPs.
Hundreds of billions tied up in cash ISA’s.
That's a little different to an argument over borrowing to invest to generate a return that can service the extra debt with extra tax income in the future.
Where I think the argument struggles is that Britain is borrowing to pay the interest on its existing debt (and possibly still borrowing to pay for current expenditure). So the argument, "we're borrowing to invest," risks being heard as, "we're borrowing to avoid difficult decisions on matching expenditure to income," either by spending cuts or tax rises.
Speaking of investment, Britain apparently has a shiny new railway but cannot manage to organise passenger trains to run on it. What is the story with East-West rail?
What really helped that generation was not so much thrift and saving (consumer spending and credit went up massively) but house price inflation. The market did the thrift for them.
And the huge surge in cash ISA funds has happened since Covid.
If you are 48, no mortgage, combined income well into 6 figures, kids left home. Well, you are looking at maintaining lifestyle on retirement. So you are saving like crazy.
If you are 23, living in an HMO, and rent, food and transport takes 95% of your post tax income, not so much.
I don't know how this sort of thing is reflected in the figures.
NEW THREAD
One would be a 100% IHT and dividend policy. All assets at death taken by the state, and distributed out equally to everyone of voting age annually.
In theory this would trigger big spending increases: the recipients spending their windfall, and more importantly the elderly rapidly spending their nest eggs to keep them out of the clutches of the state.
It would, though, drive an exodus of elderly wealthy from the country so would get Laffered away.
(Similar to the carbon tax and dividend policy mooted as an alternative to carbon credits).
The other is a ISA and pension system with tax benefits limited to investments with a risk beta over a certain level. Would lead to increased spending and increased investments in risky assets.
When you make a promise to subsidise the *production* of something - such as Wh of zero emission power for vehicles (batteries without naming the tech) - you do it via a kind of government security.
So if you produce nothing, you get no return. If you produce something, you get a subsidy per Watt Hour, scaled according to U.K. content.
Why make it a government security? - well, it makes changing/abolishing it a default. Tying the hands of your successors.
And they would cost next to nothing to issue *now* - but 10 years down the line the money becomes due.
The ultimate cheap boiled sweet of government finance.
I've also had a look at 2 generations back of my family where there were 21 great aunts/uncles (42 if they married). Seems you could afford large families then when we were substantially poorer but not now. Are children just out of fashion?
https://revoltingparty.co.uk/revolting-comments/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi9DCw9Osec
How it's done. In 30 seconds.
People can do what they want but I’d think that money could be more productively deployed in other asset classes in a tax efficient wrapper.
Borrowing MORE to invest is not
Bluntly we need to cut current spending and raise taxes to bring the current account into balance. we can then afford to borrow 1-2% of gbp for government investment