Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From YouGov: The budget in five charts

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited November 25 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From YouGov: The budget in five charts

1/ Extra NHS funding and increases in the National Living Wage were the most well-received ideas of the Budget https://t.co/gLkz3FJTEF pic.twitter.com/YoAeSlNVsa

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • First?
  • Nothing very surprising here. Public approves of more spending and low taxes. Who'd have thought it?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    Support from the public for raising ‘sin’ taxes bodes well!
    Surprised so many people are opposed to the railcard. I get that it’s not dramatic but to actually oppose it surprised me.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.

    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.
  • FPT
    HYUFD said:

    On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.

    For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.

    Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.

    We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.

    Ultimately Russia only has one thing that China lacks at the moment: an aggressive self-confidence and determination to push itself forwards. As China steps more out of the shadows they will absolutely dwarf Russia who won't have much power in their own Eastern regions let alone globally. Psychologically they don't seem at all happy with being clear second fiddles globally to the USA, how are they going to cope with being pushed around by their southern neighbours in China?

    Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.

    Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    'Only a third' is a bad way of looking at it. That's a positive number stacked against 10% who think it'll make things worse.
  • 'Only a third' is a bad way of looking at it. That's a positive number stacked against 10% who think it'll make things worse.

    Especially when the 10% are so clearly wrong and are just being contrarian as people are to all policies as some people just hate whoever is in government.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756
    I'm not sure how relevant the 18-30 bracket is when it comes to not liking the stamp duty cut.

    I can't imagine there are many 18 year olds who are thinking about property ownership, indeed most people I know under the age of 27 have written off the idea entirely and hardly save at all. But your mindset changes a lot as you settle down and your career progresses. That tends to happen later in life these days.

    With the average age of a first time buyer at about 30, this one was always going to appeal to a slightly older audience. Aged 18-25, house buying was not on my mind, paying for uni and trying to find a job with career progression was. Of course 18 year olds are going to be more enthused by an increase in the minimum wage than the chance to knock £5k off a £300k house...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,376
    edited November 25
    I would have thought a pretty good poll for Con.

    Whilst young people are most concerned about NHS, out of the 11 policies they rated the Stamp Duty cut 3rd and the railcard 5th - so those policies have been appreciated to at least a reasonable extent.

    On Stamp Duty only 10% say Less Affordable so message that it will just drive up prices hasn't really hit home at all.

    The bad news for Con is that Lab is favoured on living standards - though not by wide margin. But answers on other questions do indicate big reservations remain re overall Lab approach to economy.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.

    For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.

    Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.

    We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.

    Ultimately Russia in China?

    Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.

    Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.
    Only if China steps in to fill any vacuum in American intervention instead. At the moment outside of Far East Asia China shows no signs of doing so, certainly not in military terms
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
    Though China is also in demographic decline too, by 2050 India may well be the most populous nation on the planet and will certainly be at least the 3rd largest global economy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited November 25
    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    The LDs stopping Corbyn doing anything excessively socialist would probably cause massive relief.

    Or certainly a lot less disappointment than if he actuallly gets the chance to try it out.....
  • What a stunning performance by Scotland against Australia.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847
    The measures are too little, and don't address the underlying structural problems. As sensible and agreeable as they are, I doubt they will win over many young voters.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    IanB2 said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    The LDs stopping Corbyn doing anything excessively socialist would probably cause massive relief.

    Or certainly a lot less disappointment than if he actuallly gets the chance to try it out.....
    Not amongst his supporters, and especially not among the young, who would quickly abandon them.

    I believe that Corbyn will be decisively defeated in 2022, and ironically the expectation that he will win created by the 2017 result will be a major factor in his defeat.
  • stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    It all depends on Brexit. If Brexit is the rip-roaring success suggested here, a Tory majority is nailed on for 2022. If Brexit is a disaster, who knows?

    I suspect by 2022 The Conservatives will have a more statesmanlike leader than Mrs May.

    The poll demonstrates, as you imply, there is no appetite across the country for Corbyn's soviet-style economic model.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. Tyndall, wonder what the odds were on that sort of scoreline. Was going to say they'd be enormous, but given the result against the All Blacks, maybe they would've been only quite good.
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
    Which might well make Russia more dangerous in the meantime.

    Perhaps those in the Kremlin might not be as willing to accept decline as they were in 1989 to 1991.
  • Mr. Tyndall, wonder what the odds were on that sort of scoreline. Was going to say they'd be enormous, but given the result against the All Blacks, maybe they would've been only quite good.

    Got to say it was the best performance I have seen from Scotland in very many years. Obviously the sending off helped but they were pretty much dominant even before that and the ball control was just superb.
  • HYUFD said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.

    For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.

    Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.

    We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.

    Ultimately Russia in China?

    Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.

    Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.
    Only if China steps in to fill any vacuum in American intervention instead. At the moment outside of Far East Asia China shows no signs of doing so, certainly not in military terms
    When did Zimbabwe relocate to Far East Asia? I think you missed the point if the last thread.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,544
    edited November 25
    The consequences of economic repression:

    NHS staff under the age of 30 opting out of the NHS pension up from 18% in 14/15 to 29% now.

    https://www.ft.com/content/cc77b56e-d10a-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

    You have to be pretty damn desperate to opt out.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 264
    I do wonder if bad economic news might actually help the conservatives. If the Conservatives ever actually got rid of the deficit, people may see their purpose as achieved and switch to Labour for Houses, Standard of Living, tackling poverty etc

    These sorts of polls do make me wonder what people really consider "the economy" to be - people think the Conservatives are better at managing the economy, but equal or worse at everything economic that effects them directly.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
    Which might well make Russia more dangerous in the meantime.

    Perhaps those in the Kremlin might not be as willing to accept decline as they were in 1989 to 1991.
    An exceedingly good point.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. H, ha, I was wondering that the other day. If people think everything's ok, they're far likelier to vote Labour to spend and splurge cash. If people are worried, they're likelier to vote Conservative.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Betting Post

    F1: the final tip on the 2017 season, which, it must be said, has not been vintage in betting terms (I'm ahead, which confounds me). Anyway, my pre-race concise assessment of things to come is here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/abu-dhabi-pre-race-2017.html

    I've backed Ricciardo at 4.5 (with boost) each way on Ladbrokes to win without Mercedes.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756
    Pong said:

    The consequences of economic repression:

    NHS staff under the age of 30 opting out of the NHS pension up from 18% in 14/15 to 29% now.

    https://www.ft.com/content/cc77b56e-d10a-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

    You have to be pretty damn desperate to opt out.

    Part of a general trend among that age group.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/four-ten-millennials-have-no-pension-provision/
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    Pong said:

    The consequences of economic repression:

    NHS staff under the age of 30 opting out of the NHS pension up from 18% in 14/15 to 29% now.

    https://www.ft.com/content/cc77b56e-d10a-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

    You have to be pretty damn desperate to opt out.

    Or you just don’t believe it will be there when it comes to retirement.
    I mean look at what they did with student loans...
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157
    HYUFD said:

    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.

    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.

    Sort of. It wasn't too bad. But I think the steady erosion of the Tories' reputation for economic competence is their biggest problem, so it was essential to avoid any clangers.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847
    edited November 25

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
    Which might well make Russia more dangerous in the meantime.

    Perhaps those in the Kremlin might not be as willing to accept decline as they were in 1989 to 1991.
    It seems to me that Russia has a massive problem in defending its eastern border. In the end, it couldn't possibly deal with a hostile China.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,837
    I'm sure when I check the Australian papers tomorrow it will turn out that they don't have a rugby union side and never have.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,423
    Oxford Street: I really hope nobody was badly hurt, but with apologies I confess that my peculiar brain, when it took on board this picture

    https://tinyurl.com/yaut3p6w

    thought of this one (by James Thurber)

    https://tinyurl.com/yd48ojob
  • Alistair said:

    I'm sure when I check the Australian papers tomorrow it will turn out that they don't have a rugby union side and never have.

    Scotland got lucky.

    Basically England softened up Australia last week, and Scotland just enjoyed the fruits of England's labour.

    Plus that red card changed the match.

    Must be the greatest Scotland performance since David Sole's mob in 1990?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,768
    I'd have thought the Conservatives would be happy enough with these findings.

    I doubt we'll be getting many Scottish perspectives tonight.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,330

    HYUFD said:

    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.
    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.

    Sort of. It wasn't too bad. But I think the steady erosion of the Tories' reputation for economic competence is their biggest problem, so it was essential to avoid any clangers.
    Was this a proper Tory budget? Just asking...
  • PClipp said:

    HYUFD said:

    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.
    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.

    Sort of. It wasn't too bad. But I think the steady erosion of the Tories' reputation for economic competence is their biggest problem, so it was essential to avoid any clangers.
    Was this a proper Tory budget? Just asking...
    Yup, we increased the personal allowance again.

    One of George Osborne's finest achievements.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,801

    Mr. H, ha, I was wondering that the other day. If people think everything's ok, they're far likelier to vote Labour to spend and splurge cash. If people are worried, they're likelier to vote Conservative.

    Mr Dancer have you been watching "eight days that made Rome"? No doubt dumbed down, but I find it enjoyable
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,342
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    Yes you said the same in 2O17 , in fact you say it every day.Put your money where mouth is .
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. Charles, I started watching the first one (Zama, I think) but, as you suggest, it was a bit too much of an introduction to history for me. I would've preferred something a bit more detailed.

    Out of interest, what other days did they single out?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,371

    PClipp said:

    HYUFD said:

    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.
    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.

    Sort of. It wasn't too bad. But I think the steady erosion of the Tories' reputation for economic competence is their biggest problem, so it was essential to avoid any clangers.
    Was this a proper Tory budget? Just asking...
    Yup, we increased the personal allowance again.

    One of George Osborne's finest achievements.
    Wasn't that a LibDem policy that Cameron fought against?

    "A £10,000 starting point for income tax was the Liberal Democrats’ flagship policy at the 2010 election, when David Cameron argued it was too expensive because the deficit had to be reduced. More recently, the Tories have started to claim ownership of the “tax cut” – to Mr Clegg’s irritation."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-and-lib-dems-bicker-over-rise-in-tax-allowance-8945629.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. Song, the personal allowance is very expensive, and should stop rising.

    However, it was a Conservative Chancellor who introduced it. If the Lib Dems had tried to claim ownership of their role in Coalition they could've had a better shot at claiming the credit.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,330

    PClipp said:

    HYUFD said:

    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.
    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.

    Sort of. It wasn't too bad. But I think the steady erosion of the Tories' reputation for economic competence is their biggest problem, so it was essential to avoid any clangers.
    Was this a proper Tory budget? Just asking...
    Yup, we increased the personal allowance again.
    One of George Osborne's finest achievements.
    Wasn't that a LibDem policy that Cameron fought against?
    "A £10,000 starting point for income tax was the Liberal Democrats’ flagship policy at the 2010 election, when David Cameron argued it was too expensive because the deficit had to be reduced. More recently, the Tories have started to claim ownership of the “tax cut” – to Mr Clegg’s irritation."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-and-lib-dems-bicker-over-rise-in-tax-allowance-8945629.html
    Of course it was a Lib Dem policy, Mr Song, that the Conservatives were fiercely opposed to. I think Mr Eagles is just trying to be provocative.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    nielh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
    Which might well make Russia more dangerous in the meantime.

    Perhaps those in the Kremlin might not be as willing to accept decline as they were in 1989 to 1991.
    It seems to me that Russia has a massive problem in defending its eastern border. In the end, it couldn't possibly deal with a hostile China.
    As Napoleon and Hitler discovered invading Russia is never a good idea, especially in winter
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,370
    I don't think opting out of pension schemes should be permitted. It's not in Australia, which has one of the best funded systems in the world.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313
    HYUFD said:

    nielh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
    Which might well make Russia more dangerous in the meantime.

    Perhaps those in the Kremlin might not be as willing to accept decline as they were in 1989 to 1991.
    It seems to me that Russia has a massive problem in defending its eastern border. In the end, it couldn't possibly deal with a hostile China.
    As Napoleon and Hitler discovered invading Russia is never a good idea, especially in winter
    Didn't they invade in summer?
  • Mr. Song, the personal allowance is very expensive, and should stop rising.

    However, it was a Conservative Chancellor who introduced it. If the Lib Dems had tried to claim ownership of their role in Coalition they could've had a better shot at claiming the credit.

    It is a great thing, and provides a great contrast to Labour when Labour kicked the lower paid in the knackers by abolishing the 10p tax rate.

    Only the Tories are the party that help the lower paid.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    It is unlikely Corbyn will get anywhere near reducing the SNP to 2010 levels even if he does take a few more seats from the SNP and he only needs to win 3 Tory marginal to deprive the Tories of sufficient seats to do a deal with the DUP.

    I agree the LDs would dilute the measures pushed through by a PM Corbyn but it would still be a PM Corbyn.
  • HYUFD said:

    nielh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
    Which might well make Russia more dangerous in the meantime.

    Perhaps those in the Kremlin might not be as willing to accept decline as they were in 1989 to 1991.
    It seems to me that Russia has a massive problem in defending its eastern border. In the end, it couldn't possibly deal with a hostile China.
    As Napoleon and Hitler discovered invading Russia is never a good idea, especially in winter
    Barbarossa began on June 22nd.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.

    For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.

    Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.

    We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.

    Ultimately Russia in China?

    Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.

    Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
    Russia was able to step into a .
    Only if China steps in to fill any vacuum in American intervention instead. At the moment outside of Far East Asia China shows no signs of doing so, certainly not in military terms
    When did Zimbabwe relocate to Far East Asia? I think you missed the point if the last thread.
    Which Chinese troops and jets have been sent to Zimbabwe? It was losing the support of the Zimbabwean army which really cost Mugabe the Presidency even if China may have had some economic influence in the country.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited November 25

    HYUFD said:

    nielh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    Russia was able to step into a vacuum because nobody else was prepared to get involved. Had America stepped in to turn against Assad then Russia would have been unable to do what they did. I agree that Russia is willing to use its military muscle which is what I described as their aggressive self-confidence. As China steps forward then Russia's room for to act like that will shrink.

    I think this is spot on.

    I think we also need to remember that Russia's economy is almost completely dependent on energy exports. It's Saudi Arabia without the Islam, with a bigger military, and with massively worse demographics.

    As solar continues to get cheaper, as new sources of natural gas come on stream, and as the rest of the world discovers the US secret of fracking, energy prices will continue to be pressured.

    All the military might in the world cannot overcome economics and demographics. Russia's decline may be slow, but it is probably inexorable.
    Which might well make Russia more dangerous in the meantime.

    Perhaps those in the Kremlin might not be as willing to accept decline as they were in 1989 to 1991.
    It seems to me that Russia has a massive problem in defending its eastern border. In the end, it couldn't possibly deal with a hostile China.
    As Napoleon and Hitler discovered invading Russia is never a good idea, especially in winter
    Barbarossa began on June 22nd.
    Then by December 1941 weather conditions grounded the Luftwaffe and blizzards blinded and froze German forces and the Nazis lost the Battle for Moscow.

    If you invade Russia you have to conquer the country by the end of Autumn, an almost impossible task.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    It is unlikely Corbyn will get anywhere near reducing the SNP to 2010 levels even if he does take a few more seats from the SNP and he only needs to win 3 Tory marginal to deprive the Tories of sufficient seats to do a deal with the DUP.

    I agree the LDs would dilute the measures pushed through by a PM Corbyn but it would still be a PM Corbyn.
    It would be a PM Corbyn presiding over a government that could only enact SDP/Blairite policies granted by the Liberals and which would massively disappoint the expectations of all his supporters who would abandon him at the following election.

    But he wont I believe even achieve that. I think he will be decisively defeated in 2022, and the commentators will be saying on election night "this is the defeat deferred from 2017".

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    rkrkrk said:

    Pong said:

    The consequences of economic repression:

    NHS staff under the age of 30 opting out of the NHS pension up from 18% in 14/15 to 29% now.

    https://www.ft.com/content/cc77b56e-d10a-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

    You have to be pretty damn desperate to opt out.

    Or you just don’t believe it will be there when it comes to retirement.
    I mean look at what they did with student loans...
    Or you do not intend to be in the UK. A lot of our foreign staff opt out of NHS Superannuation.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,632
    PClipp said:

    HYUFD said:

    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.
    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.

    Sort of. It wasn't too bad. But I think the steady erosion of the Tories' reputation for economic competence is their biggest problem, so it was essential to avoid any clangers.
    Was this a proper Tory budget? Just asking...
    'lol'
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.

    For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.

    Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.

    We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.

    Ultimately Russia in China?

    Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.

    Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
    Russia was able to step into a .
    Only if China steps in to fill any vacuum in American intervention instead. At the moment outside of Far East Asia China shows no signs of doing so, certainly not in military terms
    When did Zimbabwe relocate to Far East Asia? I think you missed the point if the last thread.
    Which Chinese troops and jets have been sent to Zimbabwe? It was losing the support of the Zimbabwean army which really cost Mugabe the Presidency even if China may have had some economic influence in the country.
    Some South African connivance too. That is where the VP fled to.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157
    edited November 25
    Perhaps we could do a deal. If we put aside the referendum result in return we could give the Tories their majority back.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    It is unlikely Corbyn will get anywhere near reducing the SNP to 2010 levels even if he does take a few more seats from the SNP and he only needs to win 3 Tory marginal to deprive the Tories of sufficient seats to do a deal with the DUP.

    I agree the LDs would dilute the measures pushed through by a PM Corbyn but it would still be a PM Corbyn.
    It would be a PM Corbyn presiding over a government that could only enact SDP/Blairite policies granted by the Liberals and which would massively disappoint the expectations of all his supporters who would abandon him at the following election.

    But he wont I believe even achieve that. I think he will be decisively defeated in 2022, and the commentators will be saying on election night "this is the defeat deferred from 2017".

    It would not be Blairite policies Corbyn pursued, at most it would be social democratic ones and the unions would still have more influence.

    The Tories would need a clear lead over Labour to beat Corbyn and get a small majority, it is not impossible they could achieve it a la 1992 but would require an infinitely better campaign than last time. Ironically though in the long term it might be better for the Tories to get a Corbyn minority government than a small Tory majority. The former would likely see a swift Tory recovery, the latter may well see the Tories suffer a landslide loss to a more moderate Labour leader at the next general election a la 1997.

    Remember until Blair created New Labour no Labour government had won 3 consecutive general elections or even lasted more than 1 full term.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.

    For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.

    Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.

    We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.

    Ultimately Russia in China?

    Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.

    Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
    Russia was able to step into a .
    Only if China steps in to fill any vacuum in American intervention instead. At the moment outside of Far East Asia China shows no signs of doing so, certainly not in military terms
    When did Zimbabwe relocate to Far East Asia? I think you missed the point if the last thread.
    Which Chinese troops and jets have been sent to Zimbabwe? It was losing the support of the Zimbabwean army which really cost Mugabe the Presidency even if China may have had some economic influence in the country.
    Some South African connivance too. That is where the VP fled to.
    Zuma may well have sealed the deal yes.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    HYUFD said:

    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.
    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.

    Sort of. It wasn't too bad. But I think the steady erosion of the Tories' reputation for economic competence is their biggest problem, so it was essential to avoid any clangers.
    Was this a proper Tory budget? Just asking...
    Yup, we increased the personal allowance again.
    One of George Osborne's finest achievements.
    Wasn't that a LibDem policy that Cameron fought against?
    "A £10,000 starting point for income tax was the Liberal Democrats’ flagship policy at the 2010 election, when David Cameron argued it was too expensive because the deficit had to be reduced. More recently, the Tories have started to claim ownership of the “tax cut” – to Mr Clegg’s irritation."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-and-lib-dems-bicker-over-rise-in-tax-allowance-8945629.html
    Of course it was a Lib Dem policy, Mr Song, that the Conservatives were fiercely opposed to. I think Mr Eagles is just trying to be provocative.
    Whilst raising the Personal Allowance was preferable to cutting the basic rate of Income Tax, I believe it was inappropriate at a time of Fiscal restraint. Better to have raised the Allowance by a smaller amount whilst cutting back public services less savagely.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    It is unlikely Corbyn will get anywhere near reducing the SNP to 2010 levels even if he does take a few more seats from the SNP and he only needs to win 3 Tory marginal to deprive the Tories of sufficient seats to do a deal with the DUP.

    I agree the LDs would dilute the measures pushed through by a PM Corbyn but it would still be a PM Corbyn.
    It would be a PM Corbyn presiding over a government that could only enact SDP/Blairite policies granted by the Liberals and which would massively disappoint the expectations of all his supporters who would abandon him at the following election.

    But he wont I believe even achieve that. I think he will be decisively defeated in 2022, and the commentators will be saying on election night "this is the defeat deferred from 2017".

    Labour appears well placed to take 20 seats off the SNP plus a further 25 off the Tories. They might well reach 310 or so next time.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    Yorkcity said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    Yes you said the same in 2O17 , in fact you say it every day.Put your money where mouth is .
    It is 2017. And I did not say that the Tories would get a majority in June. In fact I was convinced that they would lose their majority even before the exit poll.

    I'm glad that you agree that I have been consistent since the election. I have consistently maintained that the election result is misleading and that Corbynistas are not only misinterpreting it as a triumph for their hero, but that their hubris will itself act as a self denying prophecy in 2022.

    Remember. This is one of the worst Tory governments in history. And yet Corbyn has a tiny lead in the polls, smaller than Miliband's and Kinnock's, and is behind May on best prime minister and economic competence. Remember too that a lot of older people believing that May would win big, abstained in protest at the dementia tax.

    Cast your mind forward to 2022: new Tory leader and manifesto, Brexit done and dusted, cartloads of older people turning out to stop Corbyn wrecking the economy, Corbyn 73, spouting the usual Marxist claptrap.

    And I'm a Labour voter.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    HYUFD said:

    Confirms a good budget for Hammond and the Tories on the whole, a majority supported 7/11 of the main budget proposals with a plurality backing the remaining 4.

    No NI for self-employed or pasty tax disasters this Budget.

    Is a popular budget a good one?
    Hammond has played it safe for himself.

    But for the country it’s a missed opportunity.
    He’s looked at the bleak economic forecast and basically said he can’t or won’t do much about it.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,123
    RoyalBlue said:

    I don't think opting out of pension schemes should be permitted. It's not in Australia, which has one of the best funded systems in the world.

    It used to be compulsory in the UK too. This was dropped in the name of choice by the Thatcher government. Which led directly to the pension misselling scandals of the late 80s and early 90s.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    stevef said:

    Yorkcity said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    Yes you said the same in 2O17 , in fact you say it every day.Put your money where mouth is .
    It is 2017. And I did not say that the Tories would get a majority in June. In fact I was convinced that they would lose their majority even before the exit poll.

    I'm glad that you agree that I have been consistent since the election. I have consistently maintained that the election result is misleading and that Corbynistas are not only misinterpreting it as a triumph for their hero, but that their hubris will itself act as a self denying prophecy in 2022.

    Remember. This is one of the worst Tory governments in history. And yet Corbyn has a tiny lead in the polls, smaller than Miliband's and Kinnock's, and is behind May on best prime minister and economic competence. Remember too that a lot of older people believing that May would win big, abstained in protest at the dementia tax.

    Cast your mind forward to 2022: new Tory leader and manifesto, Brexit done and dusted, cartloads of older people turning out to stop Corbyn wrecking the economy, Corbyn 73, spouting the usual Marxist claptrap.

    And I'm a Labour voter.
    Kinnock did not have a lead at all less than 6 months following the 1983 and 1987 elections - neither did Gaitskell in early 1960.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    It is unlikely Corbyn will get anywhere near reducing the SNP to 2010 levels even if he does take a few more seats from the SNP and he only needs to win 3 Tory marginal to deprive the Tories of sufficient seats to do a deal with the DUP.

    I agree the LDs would dilute the measures pushed through by a PM Corbyn but it would still be a PM Corbyn.
    It would be a PM Corbyn presiding over a government that could only enact SDP/Blairite policies granted by the Liberals and which would massively disappoint the expectations of all his supporters who would abandon him at the following election.

    But he wont I believe even achieve that. I think he will be decisively defeated in 2022, and the commentators will be saying on election night "this is the defeat deferred from 2017".

    Labour appears well placed to take 20 seats off the SNP plus a further 25 off the Tories. They might well reach 310 or so next time.
    They wont win 25 seats off the Tories. On the contrary, I suspect that the Tories will win seats off Labour. How will Corbyn win seats off the Tories if thousands of older voters who abstained in 2017 vote Tory?
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,051
    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    stevef said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    It is unlikely Corbyn will get anywhere near reducing the SNP to 2010 levels even if he does take a few more seats from the SNP and he only needs to win 3 Tory marginal to deprive the Tories of sufficient seats to do a deal with the DUP.

    I agree the LDs would dilute the measures pushed through by a PM Corbyn but it would still be a PM Corbyn.
    I
    Labour appears well placed to take 20 seats off the SNP plus a further 25 off the Tories. They might well reach 310 or so next time.
    They wont win 25 seats off the Tories. On the contrary, I suspect that the Tories will win seats off Labour. How will Corbyn win seats off the Tories if thousands of older voters who abstained in 2017 vote Tory?
    I don;t share your assumption - people were well aware that the polls were much closer by the final week of the campaign.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,525
    stevef said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    It is unlikely Corbyn will get anywhere near reducing the SNP to 2010 levels even if he does take a few more seats from the SNP and he only needs to win 3 Tory marginal to deprive the Tories of sufficient seats to do a deal with the DUP.

    I agree the LDs would dilute the measures pushed through by a PM Corbyn but it would still be a PM Corbyn.
    It would be a PM Corbyn presiding over a government that could only enact SDP/Blairite policies granted by the Liberals and which would massively disappoint the expectations of all his supporters who would abandon him at the following election.

    But he wont I believe even achieve that. I think he will be decisively defeated in 2022, and the commentators will be saying on election night "this is the defeat deferred from 2017".

    Labour appears well placed to take 20 seats off the SNP plus a further 25 off the Tories. They might well reach 310 or so next time.
    They wont win 25 seats off the Tories. On the contrary, I suspect that the Tories will win seats off Labour. How will Corbyn win seats off the Tories if thousands of older voters who abstained in 2017 vote Tory?
    Just like you lot said before the GE that under Corbyn Labour won't reach 30% - or was it 25% ?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    When was the last time that a party in Government which had started losing seats managed to reverse that trend before leaving office?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,525
    stevef said:

    Yorkcity said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The key finding is that although most people think that the Tories are mismanaging the economy -rightly -they also -rightly -think that Corbyn and his clowns would do worse. No opposition party has ever come to power without having double digit leads in the polls and without being ahead on economic trust. Once again, all is pointing to the bubble of Corbynista hubris popping loudly next time there is a general election exit poll.

    I certainly think the Corbyn overall majority or even landslide the Corbynistas are hoping for is highly unlikely to be the projection when the next general election exit poll comes.

    However Corbyn could still end up PM of a minority government if he has enough support from the SNP and/or the LDs in terms of confidence and supply to get Labour over the 326 seats needed for a majority in Parliament even if the Tories end up the largest party.
    No I dont think he will be that position. If Labour takes seats from the SNP, the arithmetic would be the same as now, and it is unlikely that he will win Tory marginals, very few of which fell to Labour in 2017. And in any case, even if he were, if he were at the mercy of the Liberals, he wouldnt be able to do anything socialist. He would only be able to pursue policies which the Liberals approved, and this would cause massive dissapointed expectations.

    But I believe there will be a Tory majority in 2022.
    Yes you said the same in 2O17 , in fact you say it every day.Put your money where mouth is .
    It is 2017. And I did not say that the Tories would get a majority in June. In fact I was convinced that they would lose their majority even before the exit poll.

    I'm glad that you agree that I have been consistent since the election. I have consistently maintained that the election result is misleading and that Corbynistas are not only misinterpreting it as a triumph for their hero, but that their hubris will itself act as a self denying prophecy in 2022.

    Remember. This is one of the worst Tory governments in history. And yet Corbyn has a tiny lead in the polls, smaller than Miliband's and Kinnock's, and is behind May on best prime minister and economic competence. Remember too that a lot of older people believing that May would win big, abstained in protest at the dementia tax.

    Cast your mind forward to 2022: new Tory leader and manifesto, Brexit done and dusted, cartloads of older people turning out to stop Corbyn wrecking the economy, Corbyn 73, spouting the usual Marxist claptrap.

    And I'm a Labour voter.
    "And I'm a Labour voter". Shit! I just spilled a mouthful of tea on the table !
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,525
    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    When was the last time that a party in Government which had started losing seats managed to reverse that trend before leaving office?
    When was the last election that went according to expectations this far out?
    Tory majority of 40 is perfectly plausible as is a Labour majority.
    We simply don’t know.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. B, Alexa is HAL's grandma.

    Anyway, time for me to be off.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Most plausible one since Plato.

    While I am a kipper...
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,342
    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477
    rkrkrk said:

    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    When was the last time that a party in Government which had started losing seats managed to reverse that trend before leaving office?
    When was the last election that went according to expectations this far out?
    Tory majority of 40 is perfectly plausible as is a Labour majority.
    We simply don’t know.
    I don't believe there can be firm expectations when we have not quite reached the 10% stage of a Parliament. I go no further than suggest that Labour is 'well placed'.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
    Yes, and as a Labour supporter I want Labour to win, not do laps of honour after third defeats, not lose a fourth time because it is led by a no hoper, and not even to get into government, screw up, and pave the way for a generation of Tory governments.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,759
    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    That sounds like Senior Lecturer "Professor" Murphaloon.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,544
    edited November 25
    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, the housing crisis gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.

    The tory client vote would be up in arms.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,342
    stevef said:

    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
    Yorkcity said:

    surbiton said:

    stevef said:

    Tories heading for a majority of 40 at the next election. Corbyn red tie, red face declares the result a triumph for socialism. Corbynista smash a few windows in protest.

    Then what?

    RED ALERT: This guy is a Labour supporter!
    Astroturfer more likely .
    Yes, and as a Labour supporter I want Labour to win, not do laps of honour after third defeats, not lose a fourth time because it is led by a no hoper, and not even to get into government, screw up, and pave the way for a generation of Tory governments.
    Hard to understand how you are so confident in your predictions going forward to 2022.Most people on here me included thought in April a big Conservative majority was nailed on.I would prefer Emily Thornberry but no way would I predict the outcome of the next GE so far out as you do with such certainty everyday.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,759
    Gah. Too late to edit.
    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    That sounds like the sort of thing Senior Lecturer "Professor" Murphaloon of City University would argue.

    And it might work at the margins. The 12-15% stamp duty on high end London properties already means that the Stamp Duty charge alone pays for renting somewhere for about 5 years instead of buying, and high end (£5m+) sales in London *did* collapse by more than half when it came in.

    Such measures make about as much sense as traditional rent controls, unfortunately - that is, very little.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,051
    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494
    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    Yup. +1

  • Mortimer said:

    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    Yup. +1

    Building won't even touch the problem, never mind fix it, until the rate of increase in population of the UK slows rapidly.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,051
    MattW said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    That sounds like Senior Lecturer "Professor" Murphaloon.
    I think it was Any Questions, on checking the R4 schedule as I woke about 12.30pm UK time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    Mortimer said:

    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    Yup. +1

    Building won't even touch the problem, never mind fix it, until the rate of increase in population of the UK slows rapidly.
    Yes, it is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system via Brexit and building more affordable housing which will resolve the issue of housing supply, certainly a wealth tax is not the solution.
  • Mortimer said:

    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    Yup. +1

    Building won't even touch the problem, never mind fix it, until the rate of increase in population of the UK slows rapidly.
    Let's check that. The ONS say (mid year est):

    2011: 63.3 million
    2016: 65.7 million

    Growth = 500,000 people per year
    Average people per household = 2.3

    Homes needed to "break even" = 220,000
    New houses last year including conversion = 220,000

    So after several years losing ground, we are holding steady.

    We need to make up the deficit we have lost in the meantime, though. We also need more houses in some places compared to others, which of course these numbers hide.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    If people are buying houses as investments rather than as a place to live - then taxation could reduce the incentive to do that. Your story shows a pretty impressive gain in just 7 years...

    But increasing supply has to be part of the solution.
    I’d also add - more investment to get jobs in places where houses are cheap.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,051
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    Yup. +1

    Building won't even touch the problem, never mind fix it, until the rate of increase in population of the UK slows rapidly.
    Yes, it is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system via Brexit and building more affordable housing which will resolve the issue of housing supply, certainly a wealth tax is not the solution.
    That will help reduce the rate of increase of the population, but you still need to supply housing for those already here.

    I know there are issues with green belt and not wanting to lose it, and there are pollution issues on some brown field sites, but there needs to be some solution to the supply problem.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,544
    edited November 25
    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    "Artificial demand" = primarily IHT exemption. For the everyman without an accountant, there's no better/simpler way to pass wealth to your kids than to stay in an oversized "family home" until death. The housing ladder has seized up. https://www.cml.org.uk/news/cml-research/missing-movers-a-long-term-decline-in-housing-transactions/

    Out of interest, how much total annual property tax (as a % of the purchase price) do you pay where you are in the US? And how much tax would your children (assuming you had them) have to pay to inherit your "family home" ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,366

    Perhaps we could do a deal. If we put aside the referendum result in return we could give the Tories their majority back.

    That might anger you-know-who.

    'Nigel Dodds: God helped the DUP become kingmakers at Westminster'

    https://tinyurl.com/ycuwm6r6
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,144
    So Scotland to finish above Wales in the 6N?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    "Artificial demand" = primarily IHT exemption. For the everyman without an accountant, there's no better/simpler way to pass wealth to your kids than to stay in an oversized "family home" until death.

    Out of interest, how much total annual property tax (as a % of the purchase price) do you pay where you are in the US? And how much tax would your children (assuming you had them) have to pay to inherit your "family home" ?
    In the case of the latter even less than over here as through exemptions only the top 0.2% of US estates pay the estate tax.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    "Artificial demand" = primarily IHT exemption. For the everyman without an accountant, there's no better/simpler way to pass wealth to your kids than to stay in an oversized "family home" until death. The housing ladder has seized up. https://www.cml.org.uk/news/cml-research/missing-movers-a-long-term-decline-in-housing-transactions/

    Out of interest, how much total annual property tax (as a % of the purchase price) do you pay where you are in the US? And how much tax would your children (assuming you had them) have to pay to inherit your "family home" ?
    The other bit of artificial demand is second homes, fragmented households and under occupancy.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,759
    edited November 25
    Tim_B said:

    MattW said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    That sounds like Senior Lecturer "Professor" Murphaloon.
    I think it was Any Questions, on checking the R4 schedule as I woke about 12.30pm UK time.
    :-).

    Any Questions Today had an 'interesting' panel. I lost patience when one of them gave about 3 entirely fictional answers in succession.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    Tim_B said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Tim_B said:

    Pong said:

    Tim_B said:

    I was listening to BBC Radio 4 while waking this morning (Amazon's Alexa is fantastic!) and heard some sort of panel discussion with someone opining that building more houses is not a way to bring down house prices, but taxing higher value homes is a great way to do so.

    So nothing much has changed on the left in UK politics then.

    Whoever said that was spot on.

    Remove the artificial demand for housing and land by taxing it, then the housing crisis affecting young people goes away.

    Unfortunately, it gets replaced by a banking crisis and a pensions/savings crisis for those who have been using property to store their wealth.
    How can you have an 'artificial demand' for housing? There is huge pent up demand and has been for years. You need to build, not tax. How many million more people are in the UK now than there were 20 years ago? Has the housing stock increased by at least the amount needed to cope with that?

    My last house in the UK cost me 150k pounds to buy, and sold almost 7 years later for 390k pounds (in 2005). And that was in rural Yorkshire. With the profit from that sale we were able to pay cash for a 4 bedroom and a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs of one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    There is clearly a housing supply problem in the UK of major proportions. Taxing won't fix it. Building will.
    Yup. +1

    Building won't even touch the problem, never mind fix it, until the rate of increase in population of the UK slows rapidly.
    Yes, it is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system via Brexit and building more affordable housing which will resolve the issue of housing supply, certainly a wealth tax is not the solution.
    That will help reduce the rate of increase of the population, but you still need to supply housing for those already here.

    I know there are issues with green belt and not wanting to lose it, and there are pollution issues on some brown field sites, but there needs to be some solution to the supply problem.
    I agree it has to go hand in hand with building more affordable housing.

    That should be possible while preserving most of the green belt.
This discussion has been closed.