Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
While I don't really doubt the need to spend more on defence, I also suspect that the issue is how the money is spent, not just how large the budget is. I'm no expert, but what I've read over many, many years is that the MoD is no bastion of efficiency or value for money in how it deploys its budget, and much waste and unwise spending is common. In other words, we should be getting more bang (sic) for our (current) bucks.
Many of the same people who say that throwing more and more money at the NHS is throwing money into a bottomless pit seem reluctant to apply the same argument to defence. But I reckon it's easier to gauge whether NHS money is improving outcomes than it is to determine the effectiveness of defence spending.
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
OK, so Healey's resignation causes Labour blow up over the weekend, damaging Burnham's chances in Makerfield. The gilt has already rubbed off the RefUK candidate there. Badenoch says her Party will get into bed with RefUK in order to get power. So for me that means that Makerfield is now between RestoreGB and the Lib Dems ... it's a two horse race, I tell you!
One thing is certain; if there's no more money, we will need ... another defence review.
If the UK were a company I'd be speaking to my creditors at looking at restructuring our debts/asking for a payment holiday/freezing our interest.
Really simple
Defence Bonds
Issue specific defence bonds with a guaranteed return over xx years
Ring fence for defence spending up to 2030 or 3035
Raise 50 billion
Then remove the old feckers who want obsolete tanks, ships etc
Invest in world class drone, unmanned, submarine drone and new alternatives.
Speculate to accumulate and transform our Armed Forces their weapons and associated industries and development.
To make them appeal to the retail public (well, those who have money) make them exempt from IHT. Could get them away at a fairly low coupon rate, I reckon.
While I don't really doubt the need to spend more on defence, I also suspect that the issue is how the money is spent, not just how large the budget is. I'm no expert, but what I've read over many, many years is that the MoD is no bastion of efficiency or value for money in how it deploys its budget, and much waste and unwise spending is common. In other words, we should be getting more bang (sic) for our (current) bucks.
Many of the same people who say that throwing more and more money at the NHS is throwing money into a bottomless pit seem reluctant to apply the same argument to defence. But I reckon it's easier to gauge whether NHS money is improving outcomes than it is to determine the effectiveness of defence spending.
The biggest threat to our defence and security is AI.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
Interesting take from Lee Cain; I heard the interview and heard more 'no's in answer to Shippers's question than from Margaret Thatcher and Jim Trott put together. Badenoch's argument seemed to be that Reform's economic policy is too dirigiste and big state for the Conservatives to support.
Ultimately it seems to me that for the Conservatives to prop up either a Reform government or a Labour government would alienate half of their supporters. Neither choice would be sensible or wise for them. They would be in the same position the Liberals were in after the 1923 election.
Of course, if the Conservatives can somehow manage to come (at least) second in the next election, they can avoid having to confront this question at all.
If Labour wants to destroy the Conservatives they could trigger a general election as soon as their new leader is settled in and before he (for it will of course be a he) becomes unpopular. The sooner the next election takes place, the more likely it is that Reform will do considerably better than the Conservatives. The longer Labour leaves it, the more potential there is for Farage to crash and burn, sabotage himself, or simply get bored of coming to work.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
There's no limit.
Obviously a dog whistle from Kemi to get 1990s vintage voters on side.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
It's almost as if the press try to spin things. How unfair! That is the politicians job surely?
The party leaders are all at least a tad pathetic for something or other.
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
It's almost as if the press try to spin things. How unfair! That is the politicians job surely?
The party leaders are all at least a tad pathetic for something or other.
The press? Last week or so, from memory, someone on here was hounded for days by a group of people for an interpretation of something a Sky reporter said over pretty trivial stuff.
Today, a header goes up that is as incredulously factually wrong as you can get, that then gets lapped up as the truth by a load of people who like to think they know (and are) better.
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
People in the country don't get a vote until 2029. Labour MPs can have one next week.
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
Lol
Labour voters would not agree IMO
Renewables are already cheaper and less exposed to Trump.
Defence needs to be reallocated from within its own budget or cut. The non existant threats the warmongers quote are on par with WMDs
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
It's almost as if the press try to spin things. How unfair! That is the politicians job surely?
The party leaders are all at least a tad pathetic for something or other.
Desperate Kemi u turning again like on Iraq war.
We know what she said then and she wriggled for weeks lying kying lying.
Let's wait a few hours for the journalist or Farage or both to once again show her for what she is.
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
The entire budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (including provision for Sizewell C) is £14b or approximately 0.49% of GDP. I understand that it’s budget was doubled to account for capital investment (including Sizewell C) so even if you slash all of that you’re only looking at £7b or 0.25% of GDP and you still probably need to build some new power plants.
It must be a tough job resisting the demands of heavily-armed admirals, field marshals and air commodores on a daily basis. But our only foreseeable adversary has just been humiliated by Ukraine. What are we actually afraid of?
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
The entire budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (including provision for Sizewell C) is £14b or approximately 0.49% of GDP. I understand that it’s budget was doubled to account for capital investment (including Sizewell C) so even if you slash all of that you’re only looking at £7b or 0.25% of GDP and you still probably need to build some new power plants.
“Only 7b” is a lot of drones, missiles, maybe even a shell factory thrown in in a Labour industrial heartland.
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
The entire budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (including provision for Sizewell C) is £14b or approximately 0.49% of GDP. I understand that it’s budget was doubled to account for capital investment (including Sizewell C) so even if you slash all of that you’re only looking at £7b or 0.25% of GDP and you still probably need to build some new power plants.
I would argue that decentralised local power generation is defence. The Ukraine-Russia war has shown that big centralised power plants are a major security risk. Maybe get rid of Sizewell C and focus on small nuclear, wind and solar.
It must be a tough job resisting the demands of heavily-armed admirals, field marshals and air commodores on a daily basis. But our only foreseeable adversary has just been humiliated by Ukraine. What are we actually afraid of?
And to see Russia off Ukraine has had to spend as much as they have, beg borrow and steel and lose a big chunk of their humans.
Perhaps we might be better spending less in money and blood now to ensure we don’t have a Ukraine bill one day.
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
The entire budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (including provision for Sizewell C) is £14b or approximately 0.49% of GDP. I understand that it’s budget was doubled to account for capital investment (including Sizewell C) so even if you slash all of that you’re only looking at £7b or 0.25% of GDP and you still probably need to build some new power plants.
“Only 7b” is a lot of drones, missiles, maybe even a shell factory thrown in in a Labour industrial heartland.
Except it’s not “only 7b” because we need to invest in new power generation now regardless or the existing infrastructure continues to crumble.
While I don't really doubt the need to spend more on defence, I also suspect that the issue is how the money is spent, not just how large the budget is. I'm no expert, but what I've read over many, many years is that the MoD is no bastion of efficiency or value for money in how it deploys its budget, and much waste and unwise spending is common. In other words, we should be getting more bang (sic) for our (current) bucks.
Many of the same people who say that throwing more and more money at the NHS is throwing money into a bottomless pit seem reluctant to apply the same argument to defence. But I reckon it's easier to gauge whether NHS money is improving outcomes than it is to determine the effectiveness of defence spending.
The biggest threat to our defence and security is AI.
To expand, the defence discussion feels like the indigenous American Indians worrying about defending against neighbouring tribes whilst enjoying the exciting new trade with the West without much care or thought.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
......which doesn't at all address what she did say.
The closing exchange with Shipman was as follows: Tim Shipman: "So that sounds to me like you would do some kind of confidence in supply or an issue-by-issue support for things that you believe to be conservative, if that were the situation." Kemi Badenoch MP: "I don’t know what the makeup of the next parliament will be. I am working for a conservative majority because that’s the only way that I think that we can get things done."
So when it was put to Badenoch that she would be prepared to offer confidence and supply to a Farage minority government, all she did was avoid the question by saying she hoped to avoid being put in that position. And neither does her subsequent post interview comment which rules out "deals" or "non-aggression pacts" rule out confidence and supply either. Confidence and supply does not require a formal "deal" and it may not even require that - abstention on confidence votes could be enough to put Farage in No 10 under certain parliamentary arithmentic. Non-aggression pacts during elections conducted under FPTP are something else entirely.
The manner in which Badenoch has avoided the question means it is entirely reasonable to conclude from those comments that she would not vote to keep Farage out of No 10.
It must be a tough job resisting the demands of heavily-armed admirals, field marshals and air commodores on a daily basis. But our only foreseeable adversary has just been humiliated by Ukraine. What are we actually afraid of?
While I don't really doubt the need to spend more on defence, I also suspect that the issue is how the money is spent, not just how large the budget is. I'm no expert, but what I've read over many, many years is that the MoD is no bastion of efficiency or value for money in how it deploys its budget, and much waste and unwise spending is common. In other words, we should be getting more bang (sic) for our (current) bucks.
Many of the same people who say that throwing more and more money at the NHS is throwing money into a bottomless pit seem reluctant to apply the same argument to defence. But I reckon it's easier to gauge whether NHS money is improving outcomes than it is to determine the effectiveness of defence spending.
That's an interesting question about VFM with defence spending. Eg say you spend big to prepare for a risk which doesn't crystallise. To decide whether that was a waste of money you'd need to really go down the hole. Did it not happen because you prepped for it or were you wrong to think it was going to? Or were you right to think it was going to happen even though it didn't? Then there's the nitty-gritty of contracts and purchasing. So two separate questions. Was the spending efficient? Was it against the right threats? You'd want to be able to answer 'yes' to both. I suppose they'll have a model but it's inherently difficult.
For the umpteenth time, there is either zero or little cash saved from abolishing the triple lock in the short term.
It’s critically important for the long term fiscal sustainability of the country, but it’s yet another false dichotomy on immediate spending demands.
I disagree. As soon as you abolish the triple lock there will be no need for heating homes for the pensioners - the hot air they generate by fuming about the loss will do the job...
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
This is the kind of thinking from people more interested in willy waving and political opportunism than actual national security.
Our economy has been catastrofucked twice in 5 years due to noose Iran and Russia have on our energy consumption. At least the false welfare dichotomy doesn’t actively trash our security in the way that chugging on gas and oil does.
This is an outrageous, disgraceful smear on John Healey — and an outright lie. There are a ton of ways to finance more for defence — starting with net zero — without taking a penny from schools or hospitals. Reeves should be ashamed of herself for allowing this nonsense. Suggests she’s really desperate.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
It's almost as if the press try to spin things. How unfair! That is the politicians job surely?
The party leaders are all at least a tad pathetic for something or other.
The press? Last week or so, from memory, someone on here was hounded for days by a group of people for an interpretation of something a Sky reporter said over pretty trivial stuff.
Today, a header goes up that is as incredulously factually wrong as you can get, that then gets lapped up as the truth by a load of people who like to think they know (and are) better.
It is the trap that the Conservative party have continuously asked of LD leaders since the LDs first started, so any Conservative leader should know the rules of the game. It's a game that cannot be won and therefore must be avoided with skill and deflection.
This is an outrageous, disgraceful smear on John Healey — and an outright lie. There are a ton of ways to finance more for defence — starting with net zero — without taking a penny from schools or hospitals. Reeves should be ashamed of herself for allowing this nonsense. Suggests she’s really desperate.
Including, Heaven forbid, higher taxes on people with the means to easily pay them.
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
So by 2030 the pension would be locked to the highest cumulative increase overall of 2.5% pa compound, inflation or earnings over 5 years, not the multiplier of all the highest increases in each individual year.
Triple lock protected, but no longer such an escalator.
This is an outrageous, disgraceful smear on John Healey — and an outright lie. There are a ton of ways to finance more for defence — starting with net zero — without taking a penny from schools or hospitals. Reeves should be ashamed of herself for allowing this nonsense. Suggests she’s really desperate.
Asked about Belfast Mark Rowley talks about people overseas whipping up division to create disorder & he specifically mentions Russian & Iranian state actors
At that time, the US population was about 130 million, but younger than Russia's is now, so the number of men of military age was probably -- very roughly, again -- about the same as Russia's was before the start of the SMO.
This is an outrageous, disgraceful smear on John Healey — and an outright lie. There are a ton of ways to finance more for defence — starting with net zero — without taking a penny from schools or hospitals. Reeves should be ashamed of herself for allowing this nonsense. Suggests she’s really desperate.
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
The entire budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (including provision for Sizewell C) is £14b or approximately 0.49% of GDP. I understand that it’s budget was doubled to account for capital investment (including Sizewell C) so even if you slash all of that you’re only looking at £7b or 0.25% of GDP and you still probably need to build some new power plants.
Also the amounts explicitly for Net Zero are minimal. The big line items for the DESNZ are for the Low Carbon Company (who manage the energy markets) and nuclear - decommissioning costs and Sizewell C. The suggestion Net Zero and defence are fungible expenditure would be unserious.
This is an outrageous, disgraceful smear on John Healey — and an outright lie. There are a ton of ways to finance more for defence — starting with net zero — without taking a penny from schools or hospitals. Reeves should be ashamed of herself for allowing this nonsense. Suggests she’s really desperate.
Including, Heaven forbid, higher taxes on people with the means to easily pay them.
Its incredible that your warmonger types are all for cutting welfare as long as it doesnt impact the Elites
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
It's almost as if the press try to spin things. How unfair! That is the politicians job surely?
The party leaders are all at least a tad pathetic for something or other.
The press? Last week or so, from memory, someone on here was hounded for days by a group of people for an interpretation of something a Sky reporter said over pretty trivial stuff.
Today, a header goes up that is as incredulously factually wrong as you can get, that then gets lapped up as the truth by a load of people who like to think they know (and are) better.
Indeed and I was hounded over it but not a word today about Lee Cain's misinterpretation of this interview
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
That would simply result in a stampede to sell second homes..
It must be a tough job resisting the demands of heavily-armed admirals, field marshals and air commodores on a daily basis. But our only foreseeable adversary has just been humiliated by Ukraine. What are we actually afraid of?
Asked about Belfast Mark Rowley talks about people overseas whipping up division to create disorder & he specifically mentions Russian & Iranian state actors
Treasury source suggests that John Healey was, in effect, asking for cuts to schools and hospitals to pay for extra uplift in defence spending.
"The chancellor will always do what is right and needed to keep this country safe, you can see that from her actions - a record uplift in defence spending at the spending review, and then working alongside the PM deliver billions more to fund the DIP".
"In effect" the Treasury is prioritising the triple lock over the nation's defence.
See how that works ?
We may be missing the political significance here. The minister who refused to accept any cuts to pay for defence is Ed Miliband, widely touted as next Chancellor, and the Treasury source does not mention energy subsidies, CCS or Net Zero.
Interesting.
Why did Starmer accept that from Miliband? He's lost Defence minister which seems to me far worse than losing your energy minister.
Because Miliband's following is large enough to topple Starmer, whereas there is still a chance Burnham loses in Makerfield.
If Starmer said to the country that there needs to be a pause on Net-Zero and the billions allocated need to go to defence instead how many people in the country if polled would be angry and demand Ed for PM?
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
The entire budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (including provision for Sizewell C) is £14b or approximately 0.49% of GDP. I understand that it’s budget was doubled to account for capital investment (including Sizewell C) so even if you slash all of that you’re only looking at £7b or 0.25% of GDP and you still probably need to build some new power plants.
Tricky, then. Might have to cut some DEI schemes too. And find some efficiency savings elsewhere, that must be plenty, right?
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
So by 2030 the pension would be locked to the highest cumulative increase overall of 2.5% pa compound, inflation or earnings over 5 years, not the multiplier of all the highest increases in each individual year.
Triple lock protected, but no longer such an escalator.
This is, in effect, what the Tories did during Covid when inflation spiked at 10% but pensions didn't follow suit.
Policy should be based on annual decisions reflecting current circumstances, not a long-term straight-jacket. The seemingly untouchable basic rate of income tax is another. There's no point having economic levers if they're locked away behind a paragraph in an old manifesto. In fact we have the technology to make tax and pensions policy even more responsive: it could be adjusted monthly, like the MLR.
I’d be up for voting for Badenoch but not if it means Reform get to come into government. Then I will probably not vote assuming Labour have ruined everything.
I’d be up for voting for Badenoch but not if it means Reform get to come into government. Then I will probably not vote assuming Labour have ruined everything.
Thought you were a Labour Member?
And? I’ve voted Lib Dem whilst being a member. What I do in the polling booth is my business.
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
That would simply result in a stampede to sell second homes..
Starmer has let it be known that he intends to fight any attempt to unseat him. Healey’s resignation means there is now no chance of that.
There have been far too many ministerial resignations in British politics over the past decade, but none have been as catastrophic for a sitting PM than Healey’s.
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
That would simply result in a stampede to sell second homes..
From previous threads: Some months ago, I saw a column by Megan McArdle in the Washington Post describing a study that found that higher minimum wages in US cities was associated with increased homelessness.
The link probably works something like this, as I recall: A higher minimum wage means higher unemployment for the low-skilled. Not having jobs, they can't rent places to live, even very modest ones. In the past in the US, young single men often lived in boarding houses, which were cheap, if not the greatest places to live. Now, in many American cities, such places are unprofitable, and so the men who would have used them in the past often become homeless instead.
I haven't seen the study, but don't find anything about it implausible.
(If there is some interest in the argument here, I'll try to find the column for you, perhaps as soon as next week.)
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
It's almost as if the press try to spin things. How unfair! That is the politicians job surely?
The party leaders are all at least a tad pathetic for something or other.
The press? Last week or so, from memory, someone on here was hounded for days by a group of people for an interpretation of something a Sky reporter said over pretty trivial stuff.
Today, a header goes up that is as incredulously factually wrong as you can get, that then gets lapped up as the truth by a load of people who like to think they know (and are) better.
It is the trap that the Conservative party have continuously asked of LD leaders since the LDs first started, so any Conservative leader should know the rules of the game. It's a game that cannot be won and therefore must be avoided with skill and deflection.
Two problems there.
The key one is that, whatever the Leader of the Opposition's talents, skilful deflection isn't one of them.
The harder one is that the asymmetry in the question for Kemi is much starker. One of the options genuinely is a bigger threat to society than the other. So the cost of triangular hedging is much greater.
It's a horrible situation to be in, but it's the price of leading or supporting the third party.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
......which doesn't at all address what she did say.
The closing exchange with Shipman was as follows: Tim Shipman: "So that sounds to me like you would do some kind of confidence in supply or an issue-by-issue support for things that you believe to be conservative, if that were the situation." Kemi Badenoch MP: "I don’t know what the makeup of the next parliament will be. I am working for a conservative majority because that’s the only way that I think that we can get things done."
So when it was put to Badenoch that she would be prepared to offer confidence and supply to a Farage minority government, all she did was avoid the question by saying she hoped to avoid being put in that position. And neither does her subsequent post interview comment which rules out "deals" or "non-aggression pacts" rule out confidence and supply either. Confidence and supply does not require a formal "deal" and it may not even require that - abstention on confidence votes could be enough to put Farage in No 10 under certain parliamentary arithmentic. Non-aggression pacts during elections conducted under FPTP are something else entirely.
The manner in which Badenoch has avoided the question means it is entirely reasonable to conclude from those comments that she would not vote to keep Farage out of No 10.
So what you are saying is that you are putting words in her mouth, despite her specifically saying the opposite. Fine.
It must be a tough job resisting the demands of heavily-armed admirals, field marshals and air commodores on a daily basis. But our only foreseeable adversary has just been humiliated by Ukraine. What are we actually afraid of?
That's a good point re Russia. After over four years of huge spend and casualties they have failed to capture/occupy more than a small part of Ukraine and are now stuck or going backwards. Previously we'd probably have underestimated their desire to roll into Eastern Europe (hence the shock) and overestimated their ability to do it. I recall when the Ukraine war started the expert consensus was that Russia would achieve total victory within days.
Otoh we have this change with America. If they aren't allies anymore it leaves a hole to fill which will require more defence spending.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
It's almost as if the press try to spin things. How unfair! That is the politicians job surely?
The party leaders are all at least a tad pathetic for something or other.
The press? Last week or so, from memory, someone on here was hounded for days by a group of people for an interpretation of something a Sky reporter said over pretty trivial stuff.
Today, a header goes up that is as incredulously factually wrong as you can get, that then gets lapped up as the truth by a load of people who like to think they know (and are) better.
Indeed and I was hounded over it but not a word today about Lee Cain's misinterpretation of this interview
It must be a tough job resisting the demands of heavily-armed admirals, field marshals and air commodores on a daily basis. But our only foreseeable adversary has just been humiliated by Ukraine. What are we actually afraid of?
That's a good point re Russia. After over four years of huge spend and casualties they have failed to capture/occupy more than a small part of Ukraine and are now stuck or going backwards. Previously we'd probably have underestimated their desire to roll into Eastern Europe (hence the shock) and overestimated their ability to do it. I recall when the Ukraine war started the expert consensus was that Russia would achieve total victory within days.
Otoh we have this change with America. If they aren't allies anymore it leaves a hole to fill which will require more defence spending.
There's a quite plausible scenario of Russia rolling into the Baltics utlilising the Kaliningrad enclave, and threatening the Germans with nuclear weapons if they attempt to block them. Possibly on the rebound if Ukraine winds down, and Putin needs to keep wartime conditions going.
The excellent Bridget Phillipson has just made the point that as a matter of fact Labour has increased defence spending by a record amount.
It's also the fact that 14 years up to 2024 saw record underspending and wilful neglect.
That point needs to be hammered home about all responsible
The point at which we should have increased defence spending - to send a message - was Salisbury. Between then and the fall of the Berlin Wall, "defence" following 9/11 was against Islamic terrorism rather than Russian tanks rolling across north Germany.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
Tim Shipman appears to strongly dispute Badenoch's after the fact interpretation of the interview. He seems unusually annoyed given he's a journalist normally very sympathetic to the Conservatives working for the party's "house journal"
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
Tim Shipman appears to strongly dispute Badenoch's after the fact interpretation of the interview. He seems unusually annoyed given he's a very Tory sympathetic journalist wishing for the Tory "house journal"
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
That would simply result in a stampede to sell second homes..
Crashing house prices for first time buyers
"milking young people dry"?
Do you think rents are high because all landlords are grasping greedy bastards or because there are not enough houses for the population?
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
That would simply result in a stampede to sell second homes..
Crashing house prices for first time buyers
"milking young people dry"?
Do you think rents are high because all landlords are grasping greedy bastards or because there are not enough houses for the population?
I think it’s because there are so many young people on decent salaries who can pay that high rent but can’t build the capital to compete with investors.
I was repeatedly outbid by cash buying pensioners when I bought my first flat, some going 25% over home report. If we make housing a rubbish investment then demand, and therefore price, will crater in places like Edinburgh.
This appears to be an admission by the Treasury that the Labour Party has given up on welfare reform and in fact is prioritising welfare over defence. Which has been evident for some time but is now explicit.
You'd think that a misleading header on this page that promotes misinformation would be altered or updated? (Fancy reading something Lee Cain says and believing it and then printing it.) Some people obviously believe what they want to believe.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no." https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
Tim Shipman appears to strongly dispute Badenoch's after the fact interpretation of the interview. He seems unusually annoyed given he's a very Tory sympathetic journalist wishing for the Tory "house journal"
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
That would simply result in a stampede to sell second homes..
Crashing house prices for first time buyers
"milking young people dry"?
Do you think rents are high because all landlords are grasping greedy bastards or because there are not enough houses for the population?
I think it’s because there are so many young people on decent salaries who can pay that high rent but can’t build the capital to compete with investors.
I was repeatedly outbid by cash buying pensioners when I bought my first flat, some going 25% over home report. If we make housing a rubbish investment then demand, and therefore price, will crater in places like Edinburgh.
Telegraph guy was proposing bringing back MIRAS for first time buyers for their first ten years of mortgage the other day. And some thinktank proposed young people cutting their state pension in exchange for a deposit for house when young.
Interesting ideas but again supply is the issue.
Labour have failed in spades to build their target house building. It has been dismal.
It must be a tough job resisting the demands of heavily-armed admirals, field marshals and air commodores on a daily basis. But our only foreseeable adversary has just been humiliated by Ukraine. What are we actually afraid of?
That's a good point re Russia. After over four years of huge spend and casualties they have failed to capture/occupy more than a small part of Ukraine and are now stuck or going backwards. Previously we'd probably have underestimated their desire to roll into Eastern Europe (hence the shock) and overestimated their ability to do it. I recall when the Ukraine war started the expert consensus was that Russia would achieve total victory within days.
Otoh we have this change with America. If they aren't allies anymore it leaves a hole to fill which will require more defence spending.
There's a quite plausible scenario of Russia rolling into the Baltics utlilising the Kaliningrad enclave, and threatening the Germans with nuclear weapons if they attempt to block them. Possibly on the rebound if Ukraine winds down, and Putin needs to keep wartime conditions going.
So I guess what the planners would need to do there is put a timing/probability on that - then (if it's high enough) work out what the UK role should realistically be in response and prep for whatever that is.
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
That would simply result in a stampede to sell second homes..
Crashing house prices for first time buyers
"milking young people dry"?
Do you think rents are high because all landlords are grasping greedy bastards or because there are not enough houses for the population?
I think it’s because there are so many young people on decent salaries who can pay that high rent but can’t build the capital to compete with investors.
I was repeatedly outbid by cash buying pensioners when I bought my first flat, some going 25% over home report. If we make housing a rubbish investment then demand, and therefore price, will crater in places like Edinburgh.
Telegraph guy was proposing bringing back MIRAS for first time buyers for their first ten years of mortgage the other day. And some thinktank proposed young people cutting their state pension in exchange for a deposit for house when young.
Interesting ideas but again supply is the issue.
Labour have failed in spades to build their target house building. It has been dismal.
Telegraph readers own property. Giving young people extra debt to pay for existing houses increases the wealth of Telegraph readers. Building more houses decreases their wealth. Which do you think they prefer to read about?
The excellent Bridget Phillipson has just made the point that as a matter of fact Labour has increased defence spending by a record amount.
It's also the fact that 14 years up to 2024 saw record underspending and wilful neglect.
That point needs to be hammered home about all responsible
Indeed - I am not sure Healey’s resignation plays all that well to the PM selectorate - Labour politicians and members (and union members). Of course it looks a total Treasury cock up and the right wing press will haul Starmer and Reeves over the coals. But, fact is that spending is up - and many of the left are still sore that this historic increase is funded by the collapse of DFID and aid spending.
Mind typical Starmer in some ways. He annoyed the left by cutting aid funding to increase defence funding. But has annoyed the right by not finding more money to match what’s needed. No one is happy. Poor lad never catches a break.
Worth watching the video. Kemi says Reform are left wing (which is true!).
Lee Cain is anti Kemi and she did not say yes or even suggested any pacts
I think a correction is needed in fairness
The only thing that would convince me would be an unequivocal statement that she would not back Farage under any circumstances.
Failure to do that will lose the Tories thousands of moderate and potential tactical votes lake mine
Kemi needs to be careful with the Reform are left wing thing.
There is a significant section of electorate that are socially conservative/love flags/wants no migration etc and are also quite left wing on economics e.g. nationalise steel and water etc.
Reform seems - at times - to offer something to this segment.
But of course Reform is rather torn. Tice for example to me seems a total Thatcherite on economics.
This appears to be an admission by the Treasury that the Labour Party has given up on welfare reform and in fact is prioritising welfare over defence. Which has been evident for some time but is now explicit.
Tax/Spend is fungible so all of this is agenda driven. You can say anything is being prioritised over anything. Eg I'll do it from the Left. Any increase at all in defence spending is only possible because of the money not spent on building council houses or nationalising the utilities. Labour has given up on socialism in order to fund the war machine. This has been evident for some time but is now explicit.
Just seen such a terrifying, sad and terrifyingly sad interview with an immigrant who settled in Belfast a decade ago. He's naturally frightened for his family and himself, afraid to go out, afraid of his house being burned down. So would I be.
But terrifyingly sad because he was apparently allowed to settle there without knowing anything of the recent history of nice, peaceful Belfast.
Comments
She would
Cleverly and Hunt and many others would most definitely not.
This is like an EU schism ripping the Tories apart.
The Reform wing
The anything but Reform wing
Which way will the remaining 50 to 60 go after the next GE
The question won't go away.
Many of the same people who say that throwing more and more money at the NHS is throwing money into a bottomless pit seem reluctant to apply the same argument to defence. But I reckon it's easier to gauge whether NHS money is improving outcomes than it is to determine the effectiveness of defence spending.
Defence Bonds
Issue specific defence bonds with a guaranteed return over xx years
Ring fence for defence spending up to 2030 or 3035
Raise 50 billion
Then remove the old feckers who want obsolete tanks, ships etc
Invest in world class drone, unmanned, submarine drone and new alternatives.
Speculate to accumulate and transform our Armed Forces their weapons and associated industries and development.
Kemi Badenoch
@KemiBadenoch
This is bullshit.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation”
I then said.
On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no."
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166
Ultimately it seems to me that for the Conservatives to prop up either a Reform government or a Labour government would alienate half of their supporters. Neither choice would be sensible or wise for them. They would be in the same position the Liberals were in after the 1923 election.
Of course, if the Conservatives can somehow manage to come (at least) second in the next election, they can avoid having to confront this question at all.
If Labour wants to destroy the Conservatives they could trigger a general election as soon as their new leader is settled in and before he (for it will of course be a he) becomes unpopular. The sooner the next election takes place, the more likely it is that Reform will do considerably better than the Conservatives. The longer Labour leaves it, the more potential there is for Farage to crash and burn, sabotage himself, or simply get bored of coming to work.
The party leaders are all at least a tad pathetic for something or other.
I think it would be largely popular move.
Also what the f is the point of having a PM if they are not able to tell the Treasury, sorry chaps, I’m the boss, it’s on my head but this is happening.
He should tell Miliband that his budget will be slashed for defence and if he doesn’t like it then he can explain to the public where else he thinks the cash can come from, and it won’t be schools, hospitals or welfare or he can tell the public that Britain getting to Met Zero first so we can have a lovely warm glow is much more important than ensuring the defence of the country.
Hope you enjoyed the last 22 months of SKS glory days
Today, a header goes up that is as incredulously factually wrong as you can get, that then gets lapped up as the truth by a load of people who like to think they know (and are) better.
Labour voters would not agree IMO
Renewables are already cheaper and less exposed to Trump.
Defence needs to be reallocated from within its own budget or cut. The non existant threats the warmongers quote are on par with WMDs
We know what she said then and she wriggled for weeks lying kying lying.
Let's wait a few hours for the journalist or Farage or both to once again show her for what she is.
Totally oblivious to the fact Healy was actually desperate to fill hollowed out Armed Forces destroyed by Tories now running Tory and Reform Parties
Surely spending more on Defence would fix that!
It’s critically important for the long term fiscal sustainability of the country, but it’s yet another false dichotomy on immediate spending demands.
Perhaps we might be better spending less in money and blood now to ensure we don’t have a Ukraine bill one day.
The closing exchange with Shipman was as follows:
Tim Shipman: "So that sounds to me like you would do some kind of confidence in supply or an issue-by-issue support for things that you believe to be conservative, if that were the situation."
Kemi Badenoch MP: "I don’t know what the makeup of the next parliament will be. I am working for a conservative majority because that’s the only way that I think that we can get things done."
So when it was put to Badenoch that she would be prepared to offer confidence and supply to a Farage minority government, all she did was avoid the question by saying she hoped to avoid being put in that position. And neither does her subsequent post interview comment which rules out "deals" or "non-aggression pacts" rule out confidence and supply either. Confidence and supply does not require a formal "deal" and it may not even require that - abstention on confidence votes could be enough to put Farage in No 10 under certain parliamentary arithmentic. Non-aggression pacts during elections conducted under FPTP are something else entirely.
The manner in which Badenoch has avoided the question means it is entirely reasonable to conclude from those comments that she would not vote to keep Farage out of No 10.
Warmongering is in neoliberalism DNA
Our economy has been catastrofucked twice in 5 years due to noose Iran and Russia have on our energy consumption. At least the false welfare dichotomy doesn’t actively trash our security in the way that chugging on gas and oil does.
This is an outrageous, disgraceful smear on John Healey — and an outright lie. There are a ton of ways to finance more for defence — starting with net zero — without taking a penny from schools or hospitals. Reeves should be ashamed of herself for allowing this nonsense. Suggests she’s really desperate.
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
So by 2030 the pension would be locked to the highest cumulative increase overall of 2.5% pa compound, inflation or earnings over 5 years, not the multiplier of all the highest increases in each individual year.
Triple lock protected, but no longer such an escalator.
What an idiot
It looks to me as if Russia's losses in Putin's Special Military Operation are -- very roughly -- about the same as US losses in WW II:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
At that time, the US population was about 130 million, but younger than Russia's is now, so the number of men of military age was probably -- very roughly, again -- about the same as Russia's was before the start of the SMO.
But perhaps I have missed something.
Lab should not be taking advice from that lot
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/52949/documents/295244/default/
https://x.com/LoftusSteve/status/2065056435201872349
Policy should be based on annual decisions reflecting current circumstances, not a long-term straight-jacket. The seemingly untouchable basic rate of income tax is another. There's no point having economic levers if they're locked away behind a paragraph in an old manifesto. In fact we have the technology to make tax and pensions policy even more responsive: it could be adjusted monthly, like the MLR.
There have been far too many ministerial resignations in British politics over the past decade, but none have been as catastrophic for a sitting PM than Healey’s.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/john-healey-resignation-final-nail-keir-starmer_uk_6a2aa34fe4b01046d716f3f3?7fm
The link probably works something like this, as I recall: A higher minimum wage means higher unemployment for the low-skilled. Not having jobs, they can't rent places to live, even very modest ones. In the past in the US, young single men often lived in boarding houses, which were cheap, if not the greatest places to live. Now, in many American cities, such places are unprofitable, and so the men who would have used them in the past often become homeless instead.
I haven't seen the study, but don't find anything about it implausible.
(If there is some interest in the argument here, I'll try to find the column for you, perhaps as soon as next week.)
It's also the fact that 14 years up to 2024 saw record underspending and wilful neglect.
That point needs to be hammered home about all responsible
The key one is that, whatever the Leader of the Opposition's talents, skilful deflection isn't one of them.
The harder one is that the asymmetry in the question for Kemi is much starker. One of the options genuinely is a bigger threat to society than the other. So the cost of triangular hedging is much greater.
It's a horrible situation to be in, but it's the price of leading or supporting the third party.
Otoh we have this change with America. If they aren't allies anymore it leaves a hole to fill which will require more defence spending.
So hammer away.
https://bsky.app/profile/lauraphillips.bsky.social/post/3mnzjagjvas2z
Do you think rents are high because all landlords are grasping greedy bastards or because there are not enough houses for the population?
I was repeatedly outbid by cash buying pensioners when I bought my first flat, some going 25% over home report. If we make housing a rubbish investment then demand, and therefore price, will crater in places like Edinburgh.
This appears to be an admission by the Treasury that the Labour Party has given up on welfare reform and in fact is prioritising welfare over defence. Which has been evident for some time but is now explicit.
Badenoch 'respects Rupert' Lowe.
https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3mnzlzi5wtc2w
And it can't be a gaffe, because Kemi has told us that she never commits gaffes.
The first one from Gorton & Denton had Reform in the lead, if I remember correctly.
Interesting ideas but again supply is the issue.
Labour have failed in spades to build their target house building. It has been dismal.
Grassley: We talked about vaccinations for screwworms. What are the chances of the use of vaccinations?
Rollins: The screwworm is a flesh eating pest, not a virus or a disease.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2064758409887674709
The screwworm is a perfect illustration of today's GOP has become.
Ken Paxton backed the DOGE cuts that weakened screwworm defenses and put Texas cattle at risk.
https://x.com/AaronParnas/status/2065077532039262616
The world appears to be going to hell on a handcart so god knows what the next GE will be about or what the result will be.
Failure to do that will lose the Tories thousands of moderate and potential tactical votes lake mine
Mind typical Starmer in some ways. He annoyed the left by cutting aid funding to increase defence funding. But has annoyed the right by not finding more money to match what’s needed. No one is happy. Poor lad never catches a break.
There is a significant section of electorate that are socially conservative/love flags/wants no migration etc and are also quite left wing on economics e.g. nationalise steel and water etc.
Reform seems - at times - to offer something to this segment.
But of course Reform is rather torn. Tice for example to me seems a total Thatcherite on economics.
Government sources say Darren Jones is going around telling people how confident he is that he will score the Defence Sec job.
The Chief of Staff for Vice President JD Vance is resigning.
https://x.com/travisakers/status/2065085704225378545
Possibly connected with the NYT story on the White House Epstein crisis meeting ?
But terrifyingly sad because he was apparently allowed to settle there without knowing anything of the recent history of nice, peaceful Belfast.