Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
About half, perhaps slightly more than half, of their losses in the polls are due to losing support to Restore. That seems fairly clear. Restore are averaging 3.2% according to ElectionMaps and Reform is down by about 5% to 6% since their peak.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Elections are won from the centre, currently with way under 40% of the votes. If Reform remain a threat the Green vote will squeeze itself because of tactical voting. Lots of Reform votes are no threat to Labour because they are in the 250+ seats he doesn't need to get to 325 (or 275 + LD). He can afford to, and it is essential to, pick the seats and voters with care. If he drills for oil and gas in UK interest (or says he will) instead of buying it from Johnny foreigner he will lose few votes and gain some.
The centre ground on net zero/environment says: it's a good target and UK is doing OK on it but we are not interested in conspicuous or virtue signalling martyrdom if Trump, China and India are not.
The polling shows drilling for oil in the North Sea will help Labour in Scotland against the SNP and squeeze the Reform vote in England and Wales (albeit maybe with a bit of leakage in safe Labour seats to the Greens). Under FPTP Burnham knows what he is doing as that would overall benefit Labour.
Burnham is also still committed to keeping the net zero 2050 target anyway unlike Farage and Badenoch (and even China and India are committed to net zero by 2060 and 2070 respectively). As would the US be to a 2050 target if the Democrats win Congress and the White House again but aren't under Trump and the GOP
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
This is an issue we may well disagree on as it involves speculation about the future. IMHO an anti Reform earthquake has occurred and we are going to see building collapse over the next few months, and that the current trend (see early June until now) is real. They are now in a position where they can't win, Labour and Tory have leaders that are OK, Farage's reputation is tarnished and he can't recover, like Boris.
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
I wonder if the Miliband problem is solved by bringing back Dave and making Ed ambassador to Norway or similar....
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
Except it would be more like a Conservative and AfD style coalition and neither will agree to that
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
Watch carefully what he does and what he says. He has not undertaken as yet a significant extra farthing of expenditure. Even though he sounds like he has. What he has done is round up the MPs into a sheep pen of 'non negotiable' support for him. By the end of 2026 they will have worked out what that means, and will be thinking that unity is essential for winning the next election in hard times. Burnham's big move is to tell the MPs, and the country that their glass is half full and getting fuller after the next election, not half empty and emptying fast. IMHO he is safe for the next six or so years.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
In most marginal seats Labour needs to form a government it is Labour votes lost to Reform it needs to win back. Labour can afford to leak some voters in safer inner city seats to the Greens as even if the Greens won the seat they would still keep Labour in power over the Tories and Reform.
Most Scottish voters in polls also want more North Sea oil and gas drilled so it will help Labour keep Scottish Westminster seats and hold off the SNP too
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
I've always treated that the other way round, interestingly.
I had a poshish parent (family had a Sheffield tool company) and one who had been nearly destitute (small holding, dad used todo the milk round when a lad in a pony and trap).
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
Why would Reform give up their power base in Kent, Essex etc?
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
This is an issue we may well disagree on as it involves speculation about the future. IMHO an anti Reform earthquake has occurred and we are going to see building collapse over the next few months, and that the current trend (see early June until now) is real. They are now in a position where they can't win, Labour and Tory have leaders that are OK, Farage's reputation is tarnished and he can't recover, like Boris.
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
I agree it is a high risk for Reform, but unless the Tories stop banging on about Europe- the ECHR these days- they have a ceiling in their recovery too. The leader after Badenoch may have a chance to break out, but the wounds of the 2015-2024 governments are still too near, both for the party and the voters. Nevertheless, for RefUK, the corruption, council incompetence, Russian stuff, and the Trump-lite policies have absolutely cut through and it is certainly more likely than not that the odious Farage is toast.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
Why would Reform give up their power base in Kent, Essex etc?
There are kinks, sure; probably solved by drawing a line from Hastings to Tamworth, and giving everything to the right of it for Reform to fight, and everything to the left for the Tories.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
The way to get more taxes is to get more growth and more revenue that way, not higher tax rates.
The best way to get growth is to stop opposing growth. Stop opposing development.
This North Sea move is an excellent first one - it will generate more taxes and cut our imports of something we can productively self-generate, win/win.
Supply side reforms to make developments and growth easier is what is needed, taxes will follow.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average UK GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average UK GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live, it should be the price of citizenship.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Burnham to be fair to him will fund his extra spending with higher taxes it seems, Truss cut tax but not spending
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average UK GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average UK GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live, it should be the price of citizenship.
The Blair government from 1997 to 2007 spent less and taxed less than the Tory government from 2010 to 2024 overall. Only the Brown government from 2007 to 2010 taxed and spent more but then the economy declined rapidly in growth terms and overspent by the time he left No 10
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Burnham to be fair to him will fund his extra spending with higher taxes it seems, Truss cut tax but not spending
Unless he breaks his election pledge, the taxes he can increase (CGT, inheritance tax) are just as likely to change behaviour as get more money.
The Laffer curve is going to be burned onto the minds of the Labour MPs who lose at the next election.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
This is an issue we may well disagree on as it involves speculation about the future. IMHO an anti Reform earthquake has occurred and we are going to see building collapse over the next few months, and that the current trend (see early June until now) is real. They are now in a position where they can't win, Labour and Tory have leaders that are OK, Farage's reputation is tarnished and he can't recover, like Boris.
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
I’m not sure about a collapse. A step backward, yes. To a new, lower level.
The question is - what happens from that level?
Further revelations about Farage’s finances may have a drip, drip effect. But unless his is “found guilty” - by the Standards committee or other, no big changes, I think.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
You are one of the most right wing people in England and possibly the world.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
Badenoch leads Farage, Starmer and Polanski comfortably on best PM polling now and is neck and neck with Burnham. Kemi is now doing fine on looking prime ministerial, it is just the Tory baggage from the last government still holding the Conservative voteshare down a bit
Good morning
@algarkirk - 'FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial'.
Survation and other polls show just how Kemi is cutting through and with plus approval ratings
The conservative party's recovery will take time, but Kemi will lead into the next GE and it is likely that Andy and Kemi will restore more normality with reform/restore/and greens struggling into the future
Kemi is taking advice from previous conservative pm's, excluding Truss, and it seems to be working
There will siren voices against Kemi, as there are against Burnham and indeed all leaders which is the way politics works
Trevor Phillips announced on Sky this morning the main part of his programme tomorrow am will be an interview with Boris Johnson which he recommends viewing
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
That’s what I do. Apparently the leaking tea bag makes the food waste bin ‘messy’..
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
You have to check your brand. Many teabags contain plastic that doesn't compost well at home. Some can compost at industrial scale by kerbside foodwaste collections.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Not quite. The issue is not generally about the absolute tax take as %, or the % of GDP that is total managed expenditure. It's about the sustainability of the system as a whole. Currently our taxes as a whole should be higher in order to reduce our borrowing and to reduce our debt.
And Burnham has not as yet, despite socialist noises, committed any serious extra money to anything. But has committed to current fiscal rules (which are far too loose, but better then nothing). Socialism must wait when you start out already having run out of other people's money. Burnham has no commitment at all to MMT, either as magic money tree or modern monetary theory.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Burnham to be fair to him will fund his extra spending with higher taxes it seems, Truss cut tax but not spending
Unless he breaks his election pledge, the taxes he can increase (CGT, inheritance tax) are just as likely to change behaviour as get more money.
The Laffer curve is going to be burned onto the minds of the Labour MPs who lose at the next election.
CGT rates raised to match income tax rates, a new land value tax, a new proportional property tax to replace stamp duty and council tax and maybe a social care levy to replace inheritance tax seem Burnham's likeliest tax rises
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Burnham to be fair to him will fund his extra spending with higher taxes it seems, Truss cut tax but not spending
Unless he breaks his election pledge, the taxes he can increase (CGT, inheritance tax) are just as likely to change behaviour as get more money.
The Laffer curve is going to be burned onto the minds of the Labour MPs who lose at the next election.
CGT rates raised to match income tax rates, a new proportional property tax to replace stamp duty and council tax and maybe a social care levy to replace inheritance tax seem Burnham's likeliest tax rises
So spelling it out
CGT increases = people not selling off assets = lower tax take Proportional property tax, won't happen as the radicals who propose it want it to, given where journalists and civil servants tend to live = tax neutral IHT = more work for lawyers and accountants, but avoiding CGT is really not difficult given various structures = tax neutral
The left ALWAYS think more tax, state ownership and increased regulation is the solution. Whereas economic history is full of proof showing that the opposite is true.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
The problem with that is that, unless you are using one of a very few brands of teabag, the bags contain a plastic filament weave to stop them falling apart so you end up with microplastics in your compost. In our household that would be a LOT of microplastic.
We let the teabags dry in a bowl and then every few days we cut them open, empty the tea leaves into the compost and put the bags in the bin. Or more usually we just use loose leaf.
The only way to seriously increase the tax take without seriously changing behaviour is increasing payroll taxes. I fully suspect everyone in the treasury knows this, but the politicians have their fingers in their ears...
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Burnham to be fair to him will fund his extra spending with higher taxes it seems, Truss cut tax but not spending
Unless he breaks his election pledge, the taxes he can increase (CGT, inheritance tax) are just as likely to change behaviour as get more money.
The Laffer curve is going to be burned onto the minds of the Labour MPs who lose at the next election.
CGT rates raised to match income tax rates, a new proportional property tax to replace stamp duty and council tax and maybe a social care levy to replace inheritance tax seem Burnham's likeliest tax rises
So spelling it out
CGT increases = people not selling off assets = lower tax take Proportional property tax, won't happen as the radicals who propose it want it to, given where journalists and civil servants tend to live = tax neutral IHT = more work for lawyers and accountants, but avoiding CGT is really not difficult given various structures = tax neutral
The left ALWAYS think more tax, state ownership and increased regulation is the solution. Whereas economic history is full of proof showing that the opposite is true.
Burnham seems committed to a proportional property tax and redistributing wealth from wealthy property owners in London and the South to the North especially. Hence also his proposed land value tax.
On IHT it may be he just scraps it and replaces it with a 10% social care levy on all estates after probate
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Burnham to be fair to him will fund his extra spending with higher taxes it seems, Truss cut tax but not spending
Unless he breaks his election pledge, the taxes he can increase (CGT, inheritance tax) are just as likely to change behaviour as get more money.
The Laffer curve is going to be burned onto the minds of the Labour MPs who lose at the next election.
CGT rates raised to match income tax rates, a new proportional property tax to replace stamp duty and council tax and maybe a social care levy to replace inheritance tax seem Burnham's likeliest tax rises
So spelling it out
CGT increases = people not selling off assets = lower tax take Proportional property tax, won't happen as the radicals who propose it want it to, given where journalists and civil servants tend to live = tax neutral IHT = more work for lawyers and accountants, but avoiding CGT is really not difficult given various structures = tax neutral
The left ALWAYS think more tax, state ownership and increased regulation is the solution. Whereas economic history is full of proof showing that the opposite is true.
Burnham seems committed to a proportional property tax and redistributing wealth from wealthy property owners in London and the South to the North especially. Hence also his proposed land value tax.
On IHT it may be he just scraps it and replaces it with a 10% social care levy on all estates after probate
The latter would just result in millions of trusts being created.
1 - Use two thumbs for typing. 2 - Use one finger as per a Casio Calculator. 3 - Talk to it via the microphone.
I’m going for him using voice messages so he can play his cool Manchester music in the background to help the recipient understand how he is cool and different.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
Blair won in 1997 basically following Tory policies on the economy, indeed even more so as by 2001 New Labour was spending slightly less than the Major government had been in 1996 and had not raised income tax. Only the Brown government really sent Labour back to tax and spend
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
That golden economy is why Blair stuck to Tory fiscal policies...
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
The problem with that is that, unless you are using one of a very few brands of teabag, the bags contain a plastic filament weave to stop them falling apart so you end up with microplastics in your compost. In our household that would be a LOT of microplastic.
We let the teabags dry in a bowl and then every few days we cut them open, empty the tea leaves into the compost and put the bags in the bin. Or more usually we just use loose leaf.
I didn't appreciate that.
We use these - they say they have no plastic. They also make great tea.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
Badenoch leads Farage, Starmer and Polanski comfortably on best PM polling now and is neck and neck with Burnham. Kemi is now doing fine on looking prime ministerial, it is just the Tory baggage from the last government still holding the Conservative voteshare down a bit
Good morning
@algarkirk - 'FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial'.
Survation and other polls show just how Kemi is cutting through and with plus approval ratings
The conservative party's recovery will take time, but Kemi will lead into the next GE and it is likely that Andy and Kemi will restore more normality with reform/restore/and greens struggling into the future
Kemi is taking advice from previous conservative pm's, excluding Truss, and it seems to be working
There will siren voices against Kemi, as there are against Burnham and indeed all leaders which is the way politics works
Trevor Phillips announced on Sky this morning the main part of his programme tomorrow am will be an interview with Boris Johnson which he recommends viewing
Thanks. All good points. Much agreement. Political betting is not about assuming that the trend or fact 'now' is determinative of the future. It's about intuition or fantasy based guesswork as to what is going to happen but is not yet visible to everyone.
IMHO Kemi will be instrumental is a move back to two party politics, but won't be PM. Burnham is good for the next six years. Reform and friends will become the right wing horsefly, as the Greens are on the left. Neither will govern. Kemi will speed up political recovery if she comprehensively breaks with the far right.
I am probably wrong, of course. Most bets lose. Ages ago I felt that SKS would never be PM because he wasn't PM material. I was right about the PM material, wrong about becoming PM. Maybe the same with Kemi.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Burnham to be fair to him will fund his extra spending with higher taxes it seems, Truss cut tax but not spending
Unless he breaks his election pledge, the taxes he can increase (CGT, inheritance tax) are just as likely to change behaviour as get more money.
The Laffer curve is going to be burned onto the minds of the Labour MPs who lose at the next election.
CGT rates raised to match income tax rates, a new proportional property tax to replace stamp duty and council tax and maybe a social care levy to replace inheritance tax seem Burnham's likeliest tax rises
So spelling it out
CGT increases = people not selling off assets = lower tax take Proportional property tax, won't happen as the radicals who propose it want it to, given where journalists and civil servants tend to live = tax neutral IHT = more work for lawyers and accountants, but avoiding CGT is really not difficult given various structures = tax neutral
The left ALWAYS think more tax, state ownership and increased regulation is the solution. Whereas economic history is full of proof showing that the opposite is true.
Burnham seems committed to a proportional property tax and redistributing wealth from wealthy property owners in London and the South to the North especially. Hence also his proposed land value tax.
On IHT it may be he just scraps it and replaces it with a 10% social care levy on all estates after probate
The latter would just result in millions of trusts being created.
Though higher CGT would hit sale of trust assets even then
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average UK GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average UK GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live, it should be the price of citizenship.
Riding a bubble in derivatives, which set us up for 2008
And he was warned - there were papers being published by the Bank of England research unit that pointed out the inevitable result of risk correlation and housing markets.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
The Tories lost in 1997 because of one person - John Major. It was he who had pushed for Britain to join the ERM when he was Chancellor and it was entirely his fault that we then crashed out in 1992. That destroyed the Tory reputation for financial stability and also resulted in all the in fighting that then continued up to 1997.
Major, perhaps more than any ther PM, was destroyed by his desire to be at the heart of the EU project. It was a well deserved downfall.
The only way to seriously increase the tax take without seriously changing behaviour is increasing payroll taxes. I fully suspect everyone in the treasury knows this, but the politicians have their fingers in their ears...
No it is not, increasing payroll taxes distorts behaviour by making people less want to earn their income through paid employment and prefer alternative sources.
Taxing everyone the same, rather than overly-taxing employment, distorts behaviour less - and raises more money too.
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
The problem with that is that, unless you are using one of a very few brands of teabag, the bags contain a plastic filament weave to stop them falling apart so you end up with microplastics in your compost. In our household that would be a LOT of microplastic.
We let the teabags dry in a bowl and then every few days we cut them open, empty the tea leaves into the compost and put the bags in the bin. Or more usually we just use loose leaf.
I didn't appreciate that.
We use these - they say they have no plastic. They also make great tea.
Yep, that is cool. I have to admit it was only a few years ago that I realised there were plastics in most teabags. Trouble is that includes the particular brew we like so we can't really avoid them.
The only way to seriously increase the tax take without seriously changing behaviour is increasing payroll taxes. I fully suspect everyone in the treasury knows this, but the politicians have their fingers in their ears...
No it is not, increasing payroll taxes distorts behaviour by making people less want to earn their income through paid employment and prefer alternative sources.
Taxing everyone the same, rather than overly-taxing employment, distorts behaviour less - and raises more money too.
Most people don't have any other option, though....
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Big win for Kemi as well
You could equally say it is a big win for me.
Just because St Kemi is in favour of something the government does, doesn't mean that she had any influence over the decision.
The only way to seriously increase the tax take without seriously changing behaviour is increasing payroll taxes. I fully suspect everyone in the treasury knows this, but the politicians have their fingers in their ears...
No it is not, increasing payroll taxes distorts behaviour by making people less want to earn their income through paid employment and prefer alternative sources.
Taxing everyone the same, rather than overly-taxing employment, distorts behaviour less - and raises more money too.
Most people don't have any other option, though....
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
Badenoch leads Farage, Starmer and Polanski comfortably on best PM polling now and is neck and neck with Burnham. Kemi is now doing fine on looking prime ministerial, it is just the Tory baggage from the last government still holding the Conservative voteshare down a bit
Good morning
@algarkirk - 'FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial'.
Survation and other polls show just how Kemi is cutting through and with plus approval ratings
The conservative party's recovery will take time, but Kemi will lead into the next GE and it is likely that Andy and Kemi will restore more normality with reform/restore/and greens struggling into the future
Kemi is taking advice from previous conservative pm's, excluding Truss, and it seems to be working
There will siren voices against Kemi, as there are against Burnham and indeed all leaders which is the way politics works
Trevor Phillips announced on Sky this morning the main part of his programme tomorrow am will be an interview with Boris Johnson which he recommends viewing
Thanks. All good points. Much agreement. Political betting is not about assuming that the trend or fact 'now' is determinative of the future. It's about intuition or fantasy based guesswork as to what is going to happen but is not yet visible to everyone.
IMHO Kemi will be instrumental is a move back to two party politics, but won't be PM. Burnham is good for the next six years. Reform and friends will become the right wing horsefly, as the Greens are on the left. Neither will govern. Kemi will speed up political recovery if she comprehensively breaks with the far right.
I am probably wrong, of course. Most bets lose. Ages ago I felt that SKS would never be PM because he wasn't PM material. I was right about the PM material, wrong about becoming PM. Maybe the same with Kemi.
DYOR
Boris won big in 2019 and was out of office in 2022, Starmer won a landslide in 2024 and remarkably lasted just 2 years, Burnham is the talk of the town and should fight GE 2029, as will Badenoch whose increasing profile and popularity may well see her PM but equally may not
We cannot predict our PM's will last more than a few years and in Truss's case a few weeks, so if I did bet I would not rule Badenoch out of the top job
The implosion of Farage has been something to behold. Hard to credit how high he was riding at the start of this World Cup. Makerfield seems to have been a hammer blow.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Burnham to be fair to him will fund his extra spending with higher taxes it seems, Truss cut tax but not spending
Unless he breaks his election pledge, the taxes he can increase (CGT, inheritance tax) are just as likely to change behaviour as get more money.
The Laffer curve is going to be burned onto the minds of the Labour MPs who lose at the next election.
CGT rates raised to match income tax rates, a new proportional property tax to replace stamp duty and council tax and maybe a social care levy to replace inheritance tax seem Burnham's likeliest tax rises
So spelling it out
CGT increases = people not selling off assets = lower tax take Proportional property tax, won't happen as the radicals who propose it want it to, given where journalists and civil servants tend to live = tax neutral IHT = more work for lawyers and accountants, but avoiding CGT is really not difficult given various structures = tax neutral
The left ALWAYS think more tax, state ownership and increased regulation is the solution. Whereas economic history is full of proof showing that the opposite is true.
Burnham seems committed to a proportional property tax and redistributing wealth from wealthy property owners in London and the South to the North especially. Hence also his proposed land value tax.
On IHT it may be he just scraps it and replaces it with a 10% social care levy on all estates after probate
The proportional property tax (or "southern renters paying for northern homeowner's bin collection" tax) does not appear to differentiate between renters and property owners. However even if it does it seems to be based on a grievance that someone who bought a property for £100k hasn't seen the same absolute increase in property value as someone who bought a property for £500k.
The person buying a property in a high property value area will have paid considerably more for it in repayments and deposit than the person who bought a cheap property, so it's no surprise that they'll have seen a large total increase in value, this would only be fair if based on a % increase in property value. The person buying the more expensive house will already have paid more in Stamp Duty.
Back when I was a graduate trainee, my northern colleagues had a grievance about regional weighting even though they'd bought houses, cars and had a more affluent lifestyle than the graduates getting the weighting who could only afford to live in houseshares.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
This is an issue we may well disagree on as it involves speculation about the future. IMHO an anti Reform earthquake has occurred and we are going to see building collapse over the next few months, and that the current trend (see early June until now) is real. They are now in a position where they can't win, Labour and Tory have leaders that are OK, Farage's reputation is tarnished and he can't recover, like Boris.
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
I wouldn't trust Tim Montgomerie as far as I can throw him.
He's built a career out of positioning himself as a Conservative commentator, and yet I can't think of a single person he hasn't ended up attacking personally.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Big win for Kemi as well
You could equally say it is a big win for me.
Just because St Kemi is in favour of something the government does, doesn't mean that she had any influence over the decision.
I think you will find her success in winning Aberdeen South from the SNP a few weeks ago, and her active demands for opening the north sea, has gained the narrative and why Burnham now knows it is the right thing to do
It was interesting hearing some views of "free speech advocate" Toby Young. Now I think of him as an advocate for the US / Musk model of "free speech" and a culture warrior. He and his organisation have been drawn further into that ecosystem with strange links - Orban, Thiel, Goodwin, Orr, CPAC, Natcon, ARC just for a start. His nonpartisan claim does not imo stand up.
The last time I gave him strong support was when some politicos tried to define him as being a believer in eugenics, when he was talking about what he I think called 'progressive eugenics'. That seemed to me to be rather different from, and less corrosive than, the traditional version.
He's showing signs of wanting to be a delivery partner for Trump's expressed desire in his National Security Strategy to drive their values into European politics.
On the latest polls the Tories and Reform are getting closer on votes and seats. It seems Burnham wins back some voters from Reform to Labour in the redwall but leaves the Tories largely untouched (perhaps as if you are still voting Tory even now you will almost certainly always vote Tory). For the Tories to overtake Reform on seats though it would likely need Kemi to win back some former Conservative voting swing voters who voted for Starmer Labour in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing. Plus for there to be anti Reform tactical voting in Conservative held seats.
In terms of forming a government though, if the Tories do just edge ahead of Reform on seats without pulling away that will likely overall be good news for Burnham. With the rightwing vote near equally divided between the Conservatives and Reform under FPTP the main winner from that would be Labour in Labour held marginal seats
The attractiveness of a CDU-CSU style tie up increases by the day.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
So Reform smash the establishment by... forming a coalition with party of the establishment. Got it.
Someone is going to have to save Britain from the ridiculous socialism that has dominated since the war, with a decade or so exceptions in the 80s.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
Pensioners are part of that socialism (they absolutely won't see it that way, saying they paid their taxes their whole lives etc) but they are in receipt of a large amount of cash benefits and subsidies from the State.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
That golden economy is why Blair stuck to Tory fiscal policies...
Brown, Blair was the frontman, arguably sticking to the fiscal rules so relying on PFI for rebuilding infrastructure didn't work out in the longterm, but at least they did rebuild the infrastructure.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
This is an issue we may well disagree on as it involves speculation about the future. IMHO an anti Reform earthquake has occurred and we are going to see building collapse over the next few months, and that the current trend (see early June until now) is real. They are now in a position where they can't win, Labour and Tory have leaders that are OK, Farage's reputation is tarnished and he can't recover, like Boris.
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
I wouldn't trust Tim Montgomerie as far as I can throw him.
He's built a career out of positioning himself as a Conservative commentator, and yet I can't think of a single person he hasn't ended up attacking personally.
I feel quite sorry for him as he clearly is not well and struggles in interviews
I put milk in first - but not with a teabag. That's just wrong.
Socks with sandals ... is he a LibDem ?
It's not wrong at all. If I put the milk in first I know that I've got exactly the amount of milk I want. I only do this at home as I control all other variables such as using the same tea bags, teapot and amount of water. It results in perfect tea just the way I want it. If you put the milk in last it's too easy to overpour.
And then we come to the vexed question of what to do with the used teabag. What sort of degenerate leaves the soggy sac by the side of the sink?
I live with such a person so I suppose I should ask her.
Straight into the composting bin under the sink, with the potato peelings, coffee grounds and other veg waste. Empty the bin onto the actual compost bin every couple of days or so. Free compost.
The problem with that is that, unless you are using one of a very few brands of teabag, the bags contain a plastic filament weave to stop them falling apart so you end up with microplastics in your compost. In our household that would be a LOT of microplastic.
We let the teabags dry in a bowl and then every few days we cut them open, empty the tea leaves into the compost and put the bags in the bin. Or more usually we just use loose leaf.
I didn't appreciate that.
We use these - they say they have no plastic. They also make great tea.
Yep, that is cool. I have to admit it was only a few years ago that I realised there were plastics in most teabags. Trouble is that includes the particular brew we like so we can't really avoid them.
Give Clipper Everyday Classic tea a try. We stumbled across them for their flavour; their green/ethical approach is just a bonus.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform's collapse is remarkable. They had two 10 point leads in early June. For the moment I can't see their way back. Now Labour have a sure footed leader (at least until Monday), the next sane stage would be a clear repudiation by the Tories of Reform, Restore, Lozza, etc and all their works and in six months time we would be creeping back to something resembling two party politics. FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial.
Currently Farage is the new Starmer - he cannot do anything right and the media have turned on him. And he is stuck in a joke by election.
It's not a collapse, their polling is solid, but it's now a core vote level that's ossified and not a GE winning level.
There was a time they were in the low 30s and Farage was almost equal as best PM.
This is an issue we may well disagree on as it involves speculation about the future. IMHO an anti Reform earthquake has occurred and we are going to see building collapse over the next few months, and that the current trend (see early June until now) is real. They are now in a position where they can't win, Labour and Tory have leaders that are OK, Farage's reputation is tarnished and he can't recover, like Boris.
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
I wouldn't trust Tim Montgomerie as far as I can throw him.
He's built a career out of positioning himself as a Conservative commentator, and yet I can't think of a single person he hasn't ended up attacking personally.
I feel quite sorry for him as he clearly is not well and struggles in interviews
I agree with your comment though
Yes I saw him on tv last week. There looks to be a health issue there. Best wishes to him with whatever it is.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Crashes happen, its part of the economic cycle. The crash was actually overdue.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average uk GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average uk GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live.
Because the economy was golden in '97 - and WRECKED thanks to Brown in 2010.
That golden economy must have been why the Tories were reelected in 1997 with an increased majority.
The golden economy is why it felt safe to elect what was likely to be a high spending government, after everyone got bored with the Tories and their lack of imagination.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
Venison is on the menu in many places.
Not really the point but UK meat consumption is steadily declining Deer numbers are increasing though, hence culling and "cheap" venison.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
I think it's less meat (i.e. not steaks and burgers every day) but a well balanced proportionate diet.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Big win for Kemi as well
Don't forget how she stopped Argentina from invading the Falklands this weekend and will almost certainly score the winning goal in the WC Final.
The reviews have varied from good to ecstatic. Stuckmann gave it an A+. Jeremy Jahns and Mark Kermode loved it. It's getting better reviews than "Project Hail Mary", even though it doesn't have a cute alien in a ball going "amaze amaze amaze"
It does have problems. It's 173 mins long. Bits of it are too dark - not in tone, but in the sense of you can't see it. Did I mention it's only 7 mins short of 3 hours? The predicted numbers for the weekend are very good: https://www.the-numbers.com/#20260717-predictions
Bear in mind that long running time and niche subject-matter killed "Blade Runner 2049" despite ecstatic reviews, but interest in this one seems intense enough to override that.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Crashes happen, its part of the economic cycle. The crash was actually overdue.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
The financial system requiring a bailout to prevent collapse is not part of the economic cycle.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
It's just removing a wedge issue from the Fukkers, who are great fans of environmental vandalism.
If Bernie Andham has any political nous he will tie the approvals up in bureaucratic bullshit to make sure they proceed only with excruciating slowness, thus keeping the Labour faithful onside, and then cancel it all after the GE.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
To be fair to Gordon, it wasn't just him who was addicted to the taxes from finance. We all liked getting more government goodies than we were really paying for in tax.
The collective denial that it was too good to last is one of the things underpinning all of this.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Crashes happen, its part of the economic cycle. The crash was actually overdue.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
The financial system requiring a bailout to prevent collapse is not part of the economic cycle.
The reason for any crash varies, but the nature or existence of them does not.
The change in the UKs deficit from the year before the recession to the year after it was actually less in the GFC (+6.6%) than it was the previous recession (90/91, +7.2%).
The problem is that we entered the 90/91 recession running a surplus which meant that there was not much change needed from the post-recession deficit to bring the economy back to balance. In 2008/09 we entered already running a deficit rather than a surplus as we'd had years earlier.
Comments
Burnham is also still committed to keeping the net zero 2050 target anyway unlike Farage and Badenoch (and even China and India are committed to net zero by 2060 and 2070 respectively). As would the US be to a 2050 target if the Democrats win Congress and the White House again but aren't under Trump and the GOP
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
For me Reform collapse = Reform can't recover and can't win.
In their hearts, do we really believe Kruger and Montgomerie (putting on one side the idiots) think they have made the winning decision? I don't.
Let Reform run in t'North, and Cons in South. 400 seat coalition of the right....
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Most Scottish voters in polls also want more North Sea oil and gas drilled so it will help Labour keep Scottish Westminster seats and hold off the SNP too
I had a poshish parent (family had a Sheffield tool company) and one who had been nearly destitute (small holding, dad used todo the milk round when a lad in a pony and trap).
The first one's family put the milk in first.
And he uses TEA BAGS.
The line to take for Reform would be 'we'll work with the Conservatives to help them correct their previous mistakes. They were far too dominated by lib dems in disguise, and had forgotten what the voters want. We will help remind them'
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Does he:
1 - Use two thumbs for typing.
2 - Use one finger as per a Casio Calculator.
3 - Talk to it via the microphone.
The leader after Badenoch may have a chance to break out, but the wounds of the 2015-2024 governments are still too near, both for the party and the voters.
Nevertheless, for RefUK, the corruption, council incompetence, Russian stuff, and the Trump-lite policies have absolutely cut through and it is certainly more likely than not that the odious Farage is toast.
The best way to get growth is to stop opposing growth. Stop opposing development.
This North Sea move is an excellent first one - it will generate more taxes and cut our imports of something we can productively self-generate, win/win.
Supply side reforms to make developments and growth easier is what is needed, taxes will follow.
Average UK GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2%
Average UK GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live, it should be the price of citizenship.
The Laffer curve is going to be burned onto the minds of the Labour MPs who lose at the next election.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
The question is - what happens from that level?
Further revelations about Farage’s finances may have a drip, drip effect. But unless his is “found guilty” - by the Standards committee or other, no big changes, I think.
@algarkirk - 'FWIW I don't think 'Tories most seats' is value unless one believes that they will replace Badenoch with someone prime ministerial'.
Survation and other polls show just how Kemi is cutting through and with plus approval ratings
The conservative party's recovery will take time, but Kemi will lead into the next GE and it is likely that Andy and Kemi will restore more normality with reform/restore/and greens struggling into the future
Kemi is taking advice from previous conservative pm's, excluding Truss, and it seems to be working
There will siren voices against Kemi, as there are against Burnham and indeed all leaders which is the way politics works
Trevor Phillips announced on Sky this morning the main part of his programme tomorrow am will be an interview with Boris Johnson which he recommends viewing
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
https://www.zerowasted.co.uk/plastic-free-tea-bags
And Burnham has not as yet, despite socialist noises, committed any serious extra money to anything. But has committed to current fiscal rules (which are far too loose, but better then nothing). Socialism must wait when you start out already having run out of other people's money. Burnham has no commitment at all to MMT, either as magic money tree or modern monetary theory.
CGT increases = people not selling off assets = lower tax take
Proportional property tax, won't happen as the radicals who propose it want it to, given where journalists and civil servants tend to live = tax neutral
IHT = more work for lawyers and accountants, but avoiding CGT is really not difficult given various structures = tax neutral
The left ALWAYS think more tax, state ownership and increased regulation is the solution. Whereas economic history is full of proof showing that the opposite is true.
We let the teabags dry in a bowl and then every few days we cut them open, empty the tea leaves into the compost and put the bags in the bin. Or more usually we just use loose leaf.
On IHT it may be he just scraps it and replaces it with a 10% social care levy on all estates after probate
We use these - they say they have no plastic. They also make great tea.
https://www.clipper-teas.com/tea-talk/find-out-about-our-tea-bags/
IMHO Kemi will be instrumental is a move back to two party politics, but won't be PM. Burnham is good for the next six years. Reform and friends will become the right wing horsefly, as the Greens are on the left. Neither will govern. Kemi will speed up political recovery if she comprehensively breaks with the far right.
I am probably wrong, of course. Most bets lose. Ages ago I felt that SKS would never be PM because he wasn't PM material. I was right about the PM material, wrong about becoming PM. Maybe the same with Kemi.
DYOR
First time since I’ve been here
And he was warned - there were papers being published by the Bank of England research unit that pointed out the inevitable result of risk correlation and housing markets.
Major, perhaps more than any ther PM, was destroyed by his desire to be at the heart of the EU project. It was a well deserved downfall.
Taxing everyone the same, rather than overly-taxing employment, distorts behaviour less - and raises more money too.
Just because St Kemi is in favour of something the government does, doesn't mean that she had any influence over the decision.
We cannot predict our PM's will last more than a few years and in Truss's case a few weeks, so if I did bet I would not rule Badenoch out of the top job
The person buying a property in a high property value area will have paid considerably more for it in repayments and deposit than the person who bought a cheap property, so it's no surprise that they'll have seen a large total increase in value, this would only be fair if based on a % increase in property value.
The person buying the more expensive house will already have paid more in Stamp Duty.
Back when I was a graduate trainee, my northern colleagues had a grievance about regional weighting even though they'd bought houses, cars and had a more affluent lifestyle than the graduates getting the weighting who could only afford to live in houseshares.
He's built a career out of positioning himself as a Conservative commentator, and yet I can't think of a single person he hasn't ended up attacking personally.
It was interesting hearing some views of "free speech advocate" Toby Young. Now I think of him as an advocate for the US / Musk model of "free speech" and a culture warrior. He and his organisation have been drawn further into that ecosystem with strange links - Orban, Thiel, Goodwin, Orr, CPAC, Natcon, ARC just for a start. His nonpartisan claim does not imo stand up.
The last time I gave him strong support was when some politicos tried to define him as being a believer in eugenics, when he was talking about what he I think called 'progressive eugenics'. That seemed to me to be rather different from, and less corrosive than, the traditional version.
He's showing signs of wanting to be a delivery partner for Trump's expressed desire in his National Security Strategy to drive their values into European politics.
A piece in the Guardian yesterday had him being interested in $5m of funding from the US Govt:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/17/trump-administration-to-grant-12m-to-groups-founded-by-uk-conservatives-jacob-rees-mogg-and-toby-young
Toby's reply included:
"Free Speech Union International ... has expressed interest in applying for grant funding from the US State Department."
https://x.com/toadmeister/status/2078157821376336016
I see no prospect of that being cut back.
I agree with your comment though
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
The problem was not the crash happening, it was being woefully unprepared for it - having maximised the deficit before it hit, from having had a budget surplus.
Deer numbers are increasing though, hence culling and "cheap" venison.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Very happy with that.
It does have problems. It's 173 mins long. Bits of it are too dark - not in tone, but in the sense of you can't see it. Did I mention it's only 7 mins short of 3 hours? The predicted numbers for the weekend are very good: https://www.the-numbers.com/#20260717-predictions
Bear in mind that long running time and niche subject-matter killed "Blade Runner 2049" despite ecstatic reviews, but interest in this one seems intense enough to override that.
So yes, go see it.
If Bernie Andham has any political nous he will tie the approvals up in bureaucratic bullshit to make sure they proceed only with excruciating slowness, thus keeping the Labour faithful onside, and then cancel it all after the GE.
The collective denial that it was too good to last is one of the things underpinning all of this.
Burnham is opting for someone who does not even explicitly want the [CoE] job. Mahmood had had to be persuaded to leave her berth at the home office, a job she loves and regards as unfinished business. She is said to be concerned about whether her successor will push ahead with her migration reforms
* He finds himself in the extraordinary position of effectively attempting to persuade someone into one of the most powerful roles in the country
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2078413799451729948
===
It's all going very well so far...
The change in the UKs deficit from the year before the recession to the year after it was actually less in the GFC (+6.6%) than it was the previous recession (90/91, +7.2%).
The problem is that we entered the 90/91 recession running a surplus which meant that there was not much change needed from the post-recession deficit to bring the economy back to balance. In 2008/09 we entered already running a deficit rather than a surplus as we'd had years earlier.