Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Slick]

The Tories here explaining how their budget will help a first time buyer on 30k buying a terraced house in London. I mean, maybe they shouldn't actually communicate more.

Does the small print suggest a 99% deposit is needed?

[Tichtheid]

[Insane_Homer]

[_Os_]

More from the Tory alternate reality. This guy is a gormless buffoon and former Tory MEP. Apparently poor polling is a win because doing all you can to shovel your own supporters out into the cold night owns the libs.

[robmatic]

The Tories here explaining how their budget will help a first time buyer on 30k buying a terraced house in London. I mean, maybe they shouldn't actually communicate more.

Amazing. To achieve that saving, the typical first time buyer on £30k is buying a house at £625,000.

[_Os_]

This article was good and was made free, the FT is doing an "I told you so".

Not hard to fill in the gaps from this and see why some (including me) have called them revolutionaries on this thread. To be a revolutionary you have to throw away all wisdom/experience/acquired knowledge, in other words you have to wilfully become a moron. I don't think the overwhelming majority in the UK recognised it until this last week, because they hadn't seen revolutionaries close up before unless they had been around the far left (bit of a clue that the Revolutionary Communist Party all became hard Brexiters, at least one was a senior advisor to Johnson and another was put into the Lords by Johnson).

Lessons for Truss when economic orthodoxy bites back
The UK prime minister’s experiment fails to take account of unforeseen consequences in the real world

Chris Giles

The disdain for economic orthodoxy was dripping from Liz Truss’s lips in the first big interview of her campaign to become Conservative party leader. “We have had a consensus of the Treasury, of economists, with the Financial Times, with other outlets, peddling a particular type of economic policy for 20 years. It hasn’t delivered growth,” she said.

This column is not a defence of the FT, but an explanation to the UK’s new prime minister of what economic orthodoxy is and what it is not. Having had a crash course in financial market punishment after the “mini” Budget last Friday, her new government might benefit from taking note.

Despite accusations that economic orthodoxy is driven by a cosy cabal of the Davos-attending global elite, the truth is much more mundane. Economic orthodoxy is not ideological but simply the accumulated knowledge and experience of what tends to work best. It is not the slave of some defunct economist, but a constantly evolving body of thinking and experimenting in the real world. It is always open to challenge.

There is no doubt that the orthodoxy can get things wrong. But it learns from its mistakes. Far from every element of the “Washington consensus” — the economic orthodoxy of the 1990s — survived the Asian financial crisis in the latter part of that decade.

The lesson from 2010 to 2015, now accepted by the IMF, OECD and European Commission, is that there was a little too much focus on deficit reduction and austerity in the post-global financial crisis years. There should have been more leeway in light of rock-bottom interest rates and high unemployment.

More recent evidence suggests there are nevertheless limits on economic stimulus with inflation constraints closer and harder than the orthodoxy imagined. The Biden administration has found that running a “high-pressure economy” was much riskier than the consensus believed.

Compare this flexibility of thinking with recent bouts of economic populism tried in many countries and ask these questions. Was Greece better off under the Syriza government in 2015, which sought a crisis and the country’s near ejection from the euro, or with its strong recovery now? Is Brexit and the erection of trade barriers with the UK’s neighbours helping or harming the nation’s prosperity? Did Donald Trump’s tariffs cow Beijing into submission and make the US a great exporting nation?

Economic populism suffers from all the diseases it falsely attributes to economic orthodoxy. It is rigid in its beliefs, highly ideological and unable to adapt as the facts change. It has an inability to consider trade-offs or unforeseen consequences of policy actions and that is why it performs so badly.

Take the UK’s sorry performance in financial markets over the past week, with a tumbling currency, spiking government borrowing costs, households unable to secure mortgages and the near collapse of UK pension funds. When ministers are itching to smash the orthodoxy, would it not have been sensible for the chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, to have considered whether people in financial markets are part of the economic orthodoxy? The fact that they are — because that way money has been shown to be better looked after — should have given him pause for thought before implementing unfunded tax cuts at a time of high inflation which were bound to stoke concerns.

With a twin budget and current account deficit, the UK needs the global economic orthodoxy to keep lending it money. So it is not wise to denigrate its thinking, nor to sack the respected top Treasury civil servant nor to refuse to allow independent assessment of the public finances.

In fact, the past week has shown the only problem with the economic orthodoxy is its name. Call it knowledge and experience instead.

https://www.ft.com/content/f1f27816-b0c ... e74c3b0af2

[Raggs]

The Tories here explaining how their budget will help a first time buyer on 30k buying a terraced house in London. I mean, maybe they shouldn't actually communicate more.

Amazing. To achieve that saving, the typical first time buyer on £30k is buying a house at £625,000.

They forgot to mention their partner was earning £150k a year....

[yermum]

The Tories here explaining how their budget will help a first time buyer on 30k buying a terraced house in London. I mean, maybe they shouldn't actually communicate more.

Amazing. To achieve that saving, the typical first time buyer on £30k is buying a house at £625,000.

They forgot to mention their partner was earning £150k a year....

And their minted folks are putting up a couple of hundred bags as deposit.

[petej]

More from the Tory alternate reality. This guy is a gormless buffoon and former Tory MEP. Apparently poor polling is a win because doing all you can to shovel your own supporters out into the cold night owns the libs.

Another delusional brexit supporting gormless old fart. So many of them.

[I like neeps]

More from the Tory alternate reality. This guy is a gormless buffoon and former Tory MEP. Apparently poor polling is a win because doing all you can to shovel your own supporters out into the cold night owns the libs.

Another delusional brexit supporting gormless old fart. So many of them.

I think a problem for the next Labour government is they are going to have to eventually explain that brexit WAS economically damaging and the UK can't have smart economic policies until that is accepted.

[Tichtheid]

I think a problem for the next Labour government is they are going to have to eventually explain that brexit WAS economically damaging and the UK can't have smart economic policies until that is accepted.

I think (hope) Starmer knows that, but he can't say anything until the Friday after he wins the Thursday vote.

No one likes being told they were fooled, he'll have to find a way say Brexit was folly and a complete annihilation for the Tories would probably give him the opportunity

[C69]

I think a problem for the next Labour government is they are going to have to eventually explain that brexit WAS economically damaging and the UK can't have smart economic policies until that is accepted.

I think (hope) Starmer knows that, but he can't say anything until the Friday after he wins the Thursday vote.

No one likes being told they were fooled, he'll have to find a way say Brexit was folly and a complete annihilation for the Tories would probably give him the opportunity

Brexit will not be a big issue its too toxic.
Wait until after any election to happen and then lambast it.
Crazy times atm. Will these braindead idiots who blindly vote Tory actually realise the Party of Government of the last 12 years has fecked up time and time again?
Put a blue rossette on a pig and they would still vote for it.

[Raggs]

I think a problem for the next Labour government is they are going to have to eventually explain that brexit WAS economically damaging and the UK can't have smart economic policies until that is accepted.

I think (hope) Starmer knows that, but he can't say anything until the Friday after he wins the Thursday vote.

No one likes being told they were fooled, he'll have to find a way say Brexit was folly and a complete annihilation for the Tories would probably give him the opportunity

Brexit will not be a big issue its too toxic.
Wait until after any election to happen and then lambast it.
Crazy times atm. Will these braindead idiots who blindly vote Tory actually realise the Party of Government of the last 12 years has fecked up time and time again?
Put a blue rossette on a pig and they would still vote for it.

In fairness to them and the pig, the pig would probably do a better job than what we've experienced recently.

[Paddington Bear]

More from the Tory alternate reality. This guy is a gormless buffoon and former Tory MEP. Apparently poor polling is a win because doing all you can to shovel your own supporters out into the cold night owns the libs.

Another delusional brexit supporting gormless old fart. So many of them.

I think a problem for the next Labour government is they are going to have to eventually explain that brexit WAS economically damaging and the UK can't have smart economic policies until that is accepted.

Britain could liberalise house building in SE England, allocate greater space for life sciences etc, improve infrastructure meaningfully in the North and become broadly self sufficient in Renewable Energy all without rejoining the EU or massively changing our current relationship.

[Paddington Bear]

Sterling back where it was pre-mini budget fwiw

[Lobby]

I think a problem for the next Labour government is they are going to have to eventually explain that brexit WAS economically damaging and the UK can't have smart economic policies until that is accepted.

I think (hope) Starmer knows that, but he can't say anything until the Friday after he wins the Thursday vote.

No one likes being told they were fooled, he'll have to find a way say Brexit was folly and a complete annihilation for the Tories would probably give him the opportunity

Brexit will not be a big issue its too toxic.
Wait until after any election to happen and then lambast it.
Crazy times atm. Will these braindead idiots who blindly vote Tory actually realise the Party of Government of the last 12 years has fecked up time and time again?
Put a blue rossette on a pig and they would still vote for it.

Judging from yesterday's YouGov poll in the Times, which if reflected in an election would leave the Tories with around 3 MPs, some of them seem at last to be waking up to the disaster.

[_Os_]

Here's the Head of Public Policy at the infamous IEA.

He's saying the problem with the UK is there's too much public spending and this is why there's no growth, because once the spending is cut taxes can be cut (and he doesn't say it but then the wealth presumably trickles down). This is nonsense of course, the Tories have tried to cut their way to growth for 12 years. Quality public infrastructure is crucial for economic growth, be it water/power/health. He particularly wants to cut pensions and wants to smash the triple lock, in other words he wants to abolish the link between state pensions and wage/price inflation at a time of high inflation. I'm not even sure about the economics of this, because like Universal Credit claimants, all this money gets used in the real economy and isn't horded, but no matter he wants to punish pensioners to grow the economy.

This is obvious political suicide for the Tories, the triple lock was temporarily suspended but they were going to reinstate well before the next election. But actual MPs are now saying the same thing as the IEA big brain, that the triple lock must be ended. This breaks a 2019 Tory manifesto pledge, but again this doesn't seem to matter because there's now a radical revolutionary UK government.

But who is the IEA character? He keeps saying "we" in that interview, but he's clearly not a "we" (I don't use "we" because I'm South African). Turns out after some digging he's Australian, a creature that emerged from the Aussie right, he made numerous appearances in right wing Aussie media and was involved in right wing Aussie think tanks/parties/activist groups. He gained notoriety especially for his activities at La Trobe University (a public university in Melbourne established in the 1960s, something close to a red brick in the UK) around free speech. I can't tell if he himself went to La Trobe (he attended the more prestigious University of Melbourne and then a masters at LSE, it seems unlikely). So there's some alarm bells here, a right wing activist stirring shit in a university it doesn't seem like he actually attended over free speech (which when used by people like this, often doesn't really mean free speech), this is a familiar playbook to those who have followed these things a bit. And sure enough if you look in the right places you find voices on the left telling a familiar story about his activity (here, here, here).

He also has no actual economics qualifications. Granted his qualifications are a bit of an upgrade on Khamikhazi's classics/history/economic history. But they're still nowhere near enough for any sane person to think "I'm qualified enough to be advising a G7 country on public policy, including sweeping pension reform, and appearing in their national broadcast media". Yet that's exactly what is happening.

This isn't a serious person. He was shit stirring at an Aussie red brick and baiting (poorer) left wing students in an attempt to get them banned, only a few years back.

[tabascoboy]

What is this mini-budget costing the country?

https://kamikwasi.tax/

[Hal Jordan]

I think (hope) Starmer knows that, but he can't say anything until the Friday after he wins the Thursday vote.

No one likes being told they were fooled, he'll have to find a way say Brexit was folly and a complete annihilation for the Tories would probably give him the opportunity

Brexit will not be a big issue its too toxic.
Wait until after any election to happen and then lambast it.
Crazy times atm. Will these braindead idiots who blindly vote Tory actually realise the Party of Government of the last 12 years has fecked up time and time again?
Put a blue rossette on a pig and they would still vote for it.

In fairness to them and the pig, the pig would probably do a better job than what we've experienced recently.

Keep it away from Cameron, though.

[Paddington Bear]

Here's the Head of Public Policy at the infamous IEA.

He's saying the problem with the UK is there's too much public spending and this is why there's no growth, because once the spending is cut taxes can be cut (and he doesn't say it but then the wealth presumably trickles down). This is nonsense of course, the Tories have tried to cut their way to growth for 12 years. Quality public infrastructure is crucial for economic growth, be it water/power/health. He particularly wants to cut pensions and wants to smash the triple lock, in other words he wants to abolish the link between state pensions and wage/price inflation at a time of high inflation. I'm not even sure about the economics of this, because like Universal Credit claimants, all this money gets used in the real economy and isn't horded, but no matter he wants to punish pensioners to grow the economy.

This is obvious political suicide for the Tories, the triple lock was temporarily suspended but they were going to reinstate well before the next election. But actual MPs are now saying the same thing as the IEA big brain, that the triple lock must be ended. This breaks a 2019 Tory manifesto pledge, but again this doesn't seem to matter because there's now a radical revolutionary UK government.

But who is the IEA character? He keeps saying "we" in that interview, but he's clearly not a "we" (I don't use "we" because I'm South African). Turns out after some digging he's Australian, a creature that emerged from the Aussie right, he made numerous appearances in right wing Aussie media and was involved in right wing Aussie think tanks/parties/activist groups. He gained notoriety especially for his activities at La Trobe University (a public university in Melbourne established in the 1960s, something close to a red brick in the UK) around free speech. I can't tell if he himself went to La Trobe (he attended the more prestigious University of Melbourne and then a masters at LSE, it seems unlikely). So there's some alarm bells here, a right wing activist stirring shit in a university it doesn't seem like he actually attended over free speech (which when used by people like this, often doesn't really mean free speech), this is a familiar playbook to those who have followed these things a bit. And sure enough if you look in the right places you find voices on the left telling a familiar story about his activity (here, here, here).

He also has no actual economics qualifications. Granted his qualifications are a bit of an upgrade on Khamikhazi's classics/history/economic history. But they're still nowhere near enough for any sane person to think "I'm qualified enough to be advising a G7 country on public policy, including sweeping pension reform, and appearing in their national broadcast media". Yet that's exactly what is happening.

This isn't a serious person. He was shit stirring at an Aussie red brick and baiting (poorer) left wing students in an attempt to get them banned, only a few years back.

Two points to pick up on:
1) ending the triple lock is bad politics but good government IMHO
2) The stuff around usage of 'we' is pretty dodgy stuff. You would absolutely not make the same comment about a commentator who had moved here from, say, India.

[I like neeps]

Another delusional brexit supporting gormless old fart. So many of them.

I think a problem for the next Labour government is they are going to have to eventually explain that brexit WAS economically damaging and the UK can't have smart economic policies until that is accepted.

Britain could liberalise house building in SE England, allocate greater space for life sciences etc, improve infrastructure meaningfully in the North and become broadly self sufficient in Renewable Energy all without rejoining the EU or massively changing our current relationship.

It could, yes. But the amount of investment that requires is a lot and investors since brexit haven't been very keen on the UK - that the Tories are all over the shop doesn't help. So we're still going for massive infrastructure programs that will take many, many years. Require multiple billions in borrowing in a time our appeal is getting worse and inflation getting higher. It makes it a lot a lot more difficult. The hospital pass the Tories are throwing the next Labour government is pretty brutal.

[_Os_]

Sterling back where it was pre-mini budget fwiw

The John redwood argument.

This has happened because the market is now pricing in BoE action, basically steeper interest rate rises than before the mini budget. Because tax cuts don't look like they're being rolled back and spending cuts have been mentioned, the idea the Tories will make this work is also priced in. spending cuts which have been mentioned include: decoupling universal credit and pensions from being inflation linked (real terms cut), council budgets (leisure centres and social care), defence spending, pay cuts for public sector workers, infrastructure (HS2).

The problem they could end up having, is if cuts to spending to prevent the deficit and debt blowing out just simply aren't believable. If departments are just given an amount to reach in efficiency savings, without the politically damaging cut being spelled out, it's just not going to look credible. Also not really clear the market even wants brutal spending cuts, it probably wants a credible and achievable growth path (UK growth forecasts have been cut), without that UK debt has a higher risk premium/higher interest rate, and the UK's position deteriorates.

The cost of all this will be immense with very little to show for it.

Levelling Up is dead.

[_Os_]

Two points to pick up on:
1) ending the triple lock is bad politics but good government IMHO
2) The stuff around usage of 'we' is pretty dodgy stuff. You would absolutely not make the same comment about a commentator who had moved here from, say, India.

1. It looks like some Tories want to turn pensioners into their latest group to attack. Someone on a basic state pension is hardly rolling in it, and they've also put in 30+ years of work. Can't see the sunlit uplands being reached this way.
2. Is your hypothetical Indian guy British?

[fishfoodie]

He doesn't consider that maybe the recovery in sterling is down to;

(a) The BoE spaffing billions of it's reserves on propping it up
(b) The markets believing the tax cut won't actually happen
(c) The markets seeing Labour jump in the polls, & thinking Dizzy is done !

[_Os_]

He doesn't consider that maybe the recovery in sterling is down to;

(a) The BoE spaffing billions of it's reserves on propping it up
(b) The markets believing the tax cut won't actually happen
(c) The markets seeing Labour jump in the polls, & thinking Dizzy is done !

a. Definitely, but it was in the bond market still showed intention to act.
b. Maybe, but could also be they're hearing the Tories will cut spending, either way the signal is the Tories are going to make this balance. Which means if that's priced in now, what they come up with has to be credible.
c. I think the Dan Hannan theory of the £ being linked 1:1 with the polling of Starmer's Labour, doesn't work that well back in reality.

[_Os_]

If they go through with it, the political damage will be multiples larger than if they had u-turned. Unlikely to be any more growth under austerity MK2 than there was under the MK1 version.

Times Whitehall Editor.

[fishfoodie]

If they go through with it, the political damage will be multiples larger than if they had u-turned. Unlikely to be any more growth under austerity MK2 than there was under the MK1 version.

Times Whitehall Editor.

Proposing to pay for removing the 45% tax band, by breaking the triple lock, & increasing benefits to match inflation is an electoral sucide note.

It's baffling how any Politican can't see this.

[Tichtheid]

He doesn't consider that maybe the recovery in sterling is down to;

(a) The BoE spaffing billions of it's reserves on propping it up
(b) The markets believing the tax cut won't actually happen
(c) The markets seeing Labour jump in the polls, & thinking Dizzy is done !

The pound dropped again after Truss and Kwarteng met with the OBR, the Treasury have refused to publish the OBR assessment of their plans until after the 23rd of November

[Mahoney]

The bit of the triple lock that generally struck me as unfair* is the 2.5% even if inflation and increase in earnings are below that.

But getting rid of that is not going to help, because inflation is going to be above 2.5% for some time. You'd have to get rid of one or both of the other locks, which is going to hurt.

* I presume it was on the basis that pensions were far too low, and so was a way to steadily bring pensions up to some measure? But if so surely it should be limited as only holding until that measure was reached? Otherwise if earnings stagnate pensioners could end up doubling their income over 30 years whilst everyone else stands still.

[Insane_Homer]

https://kamikwasi.tax/

[Paddington Bear]

Two points to pick up on:
1) ending the triple lock is bad politics but good government IMHO
2) The stuff around usage of 'we' is pretty dodgy stuff. You would absolutely not make the same comment about a commentator who had moved here from, say, India.

1. It looks like some Tories want to turn pensioners into their latest group to attack. Someone on a basic state pension is hardly rolling in it, and they've also put in 30+ years of work. Can't see the sunlit uplands being reached this way.
2. Is your hypothetical Indian guy British?

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

[_Os_]

Two points to pick up on:
1) ending the triple lock is bad politics but good government IMHO
2) The stuff around usage of 'we' is pretty dodgy stuff. You would absolutely not make the same comment about a commentator who had moved here from, say, India.

1. It looks like some Tories want to turn pensioners into their latest group to attack. Someone on a basic state pension is hardly rolling in it, and they've also put in 30+ years of work. Can't see the sunlit uplands being reached this way.
2. Is your hypothetical Indian guy British?

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

[Tichtheid]

He's saying the problem with the UK is there's too much public spending and this is why there's no growth, because once the spending is cut taxes can be cut (and he doesn't say it but then the wealth presumably trickles down). This is nonsense of course, the Tories have tried to cut their way to growth for 12 years. Quality public infrastructure is crucial for economic growth, be it water/power/health. He particularly wants to cut pensions and wants to smash the triple lock, in other words he wants to abolish the link between state pensions and wage/price inflation at a time of high inflation. I'm not even sure about the economics of this, because like Universal Credit claimants, all this money gets used in the real economy and isn't horded, but no matter he wants to punish pensioners to grow the economy.

Quite, and it should be noted that prior to the pandemic our national debt continued to grow both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP (with a few fluctuations) from 2010 to 2020, that was despite huge cuts in services under the banner of “Austerity”.

That money went somewhere, it certainly didn’t go to the economy on the ground where it gets reinvested and spent locally, as opposed to being syphoned offshore when it goes to the wealthier individuals and corporations.

[Insane_Homer]

Petition calling for a GE has now had 120,000 more votes than Truss got.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/619781

[I like neeps]

1. It looks like some Tories want to turn pensioners into their latest group to attack. Someone on a basic state pension is hardly rolling in it, and they've also put in 30+ years of work. Can't see the sunlit uplands being reached this way.
2. Is your hypothetical Indian guy British?

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

[PCPhil]

Np. The way they’re going with the NHS is sorting that pickle out.

[Paddington Bear]

1. It looks like some Tories want to turn pensioners into their latest group to attack. Someone on a basic state pension is hardly rolling in it, and they've also put in 30+ years of work. Can't see the sunlit uplands being reached this way.
2. Is your hypothetical Indian guy British?

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

Your identity is yours, of course, but it is not a universal opinion. Nor is national identity tied to your passport, place of birth or accent. I've met people like yourself who have lived here a long time and like you would not call themselves British. Equally I know plenty of people not born here who you would come to blows with if you said that they were not British (incidentally including people born in both India and SA). Within reason its a personal decision and not tied to whether I love a person's politics or not (I'm no fan of the IEA).
I also have cousins born to two British parents and raised overseas, not seeing England until their late teens. They still have an accent but are they less British than I am? They don't 'get' growing up in Britain in the timescale we were kids and miss some cultural references as a result, but for all material purposes they are as British as I am.

RE: Pensions there's a major, major difference between supporting scrapping the triple lock and taking a hatchet to the state pension.

[PCPhil]

This lot would like to cut out the middle man and take an axe straight to the pensioners.

[dpedin]

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

[SaintK]

She's going to carry on undaunted.

Liz Truss is preparing to push ahead with an unlimited number of “investment zones” despite a row within the government that it could hand an uncosted blank cheque of tax breaks to businesses.

The Treasury is believed to have raised concerns about “carpet bombing the entire country” with investment zones, with the government about to announce an appeal for areas to apply within days – as the Conservatives prepare for their annual conference in Birmingham.

However, Whitehall officials, including in the Treasury, are extremely concerned about the potential liability of not capping the number of areas allowed to get favourable tax and planning treatment. There is also concern that some of the tax breaks under consideration will last for 10 years.