Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[MikeWM]

I don't know enough about Eden but haven't heard anything that would convince me that he was worse than Truss. An appalling leader, elected by a small atypical subset of the population. While I can accept that "the people" voted for Boris, they did not vote for Truss. There should have been an election (and for balance, I would also say the same about the Blair-Brown handover too).

It was implicit in the 2005 election though that Blair would be stepping aside in the middle of the Parliament and Brown would be taking over. Plus Brown didn't really change anything major in the way of policy. So I don't think an election was justified then.

I'd also argue that Truss' policies was closer to the spirit of the 2019 Tory manifesto than Johnson ever managed, so I'm not sure an election was justified then either. Sunak on the other hand....

Definitely very much worse than Blair though. Her and Kwarteng seemed to be obsessed with an ideological drive to cut taxes for the rich.

...to the level they were previously at under, err, Blair. And Truss didn't start a war of aggression and kill hundreds of thousands of people and destabilise an entire region of the world for decades.

I'm not arguing Truss was a good leader - she wasn't (and nor was Corbyn) - but I'm not inclined to throw her (or his) policy ideas away without giving them a reasonable try.

For me, the period from the mid-90s (within the Major period, just to show I'm not being partisan ) up to about 2007 was the peak in terms of standard of living. The credit crunch started the downward spiral and, after a bit of a recovery in the mid-2010s, Covid and its after-effects (amongst other things) have caused a further deterioration.

Ken Clarke was a rather good chancellor. Gordon Brown considerably less so in retrospect (as I said above, you can have a good standard of living for a while, but if doing so by sowing the seeds of serious issues later, that's not really a good thing).

Quite. We've had quite enough "characters" in politics (across the western world) in recent years, let's have someone dull and boring but prepared to listen to the majority of the electorate as our PM please!

Any ideas who? Starmer fits 'dull and boring' but he doesn't appear to be any use whatsoever at listening to what the people want. If he wins the election, it will be because he's not the Tories, rather than people actually wanting him. (Compare with Blair, who for all his faults, people were initially enthusiastic about).

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not trying to minimise the problems of the last 10 years which have left a lot of people struggling, but abandoning consensus and trying out the untested experimental solutions that people like Corbyn or Truss were proposing carries a huge risk.

I’d agree, but the problem is “the consensus” is equally outlandish. Central banks have forgotten how to create stable economies.

I’d say the big problem has been the central banks, and not just the Bank of England, forgetting about basic economics.

The problem with the last 15 years has been quantitative easing. QE has been behind unrealistically low interest rates and it’s been behind the rampant asset inflation that has been left unchecked. All to avoid the banks facing the economic consequences of their behaviour. We are where we are because successive governments didn’t want to let the banks go bust.

And they haven’t got a clue how to fix the mess they’ve made. Like when any government prints money- which is all QE is- you end up with hyperinflation.

For that pillock Governor of the BoE to come on the news again this morning and blame working people for wanting a pay rise was disgraceful and shows just what an absolute halfwit he truly is.

He also clearly doesn’t understand that his economic policies have only benefitted those who own significant assets without borrowing. There’s only too much money in certain parts of the economy because of his asset hyperinflation.

In real terms, most people don’t earn as much money as they did in 2008. The average wage in 2008 was £25,000, in 2022 it was £33,000- but applying the intervening inflation, £25,000 then is worth £38,000 in 2022. Normal people are not causing inflation by earning too much or spending too much. Those who’ve cashed in their assets are, but high interest rates reward them even more. Madness.

We’ve had hyperinflation in asset prices for years, with the equally idiotic Gideon Osborne pouring petrol on the fire with Help to Buy, and now it has finally and inevitably percolated down to the rest of the economy.

5% interest is about what my first 5-year fixed mortgage was way back in 2005, it’s not an outlandish interest rate, the reason why it’s so damaging is because the BoE have created huge asset inflation.

The blame for all of this lies with this government and this central bank.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2023 ==

Ken Clarke was a rather good chancellor. Gordon Brown considerably less so in retrospect (as I said above, you can have a good standard of living for a while, but if doing so by sowing the seeds of serious issues later, that's not really a good thing).

Gordon Brown didn’t have the stones to let the banks go bust. The gold sell-off was to protect Goldman Sachs who’d shorted on gold prices and were facing astronomic losses. And then we had the bank bailouts a few years later.

He was generally pretty competent, but that desire to protect the banks at all costs was weak.

Although the real issue now has been quantitative easing, which was something endorsed mostly by the successor Tory government as QE happily creates hyperinflation in the property and asset markets.

 

[najaB]

And Truss didn't start a war of aggression and kill hundreds of thousands of people and destabilise an entire region of the world for decades.

She only had fifty days and spent most of them destroying economic confidence (likely for decades)…

 

[nlogax]

I'm not arguing Truss was a good leader - she wasn't (and nor was Corbyn) - but I'm not inclined to throw her (or his) policy ideas away without giving them a reasonable try.

Forty nine days was more than reasonable considering the absolute mess she and Kwarteng made of the UK economy in that short time. I dread to think what one extra day would have brought us, let alone whatever is considered a 'reasonable try'.

Ken Clarke was a rather good chancellor. Gordon Brown considerably less so in retrospect (as I said above, you can have a good standard of living for a while, but if doing so by sowing the seeds of serious issues later, that's not really a good thing).

I agree here. Clarke was indeed a good chancellor. The jury may still be out on Brown. He was the one who infamously bragged "We will never return to the old boom and bust".. that's probably come back to haunt him time and time again.

 

[nw1]

Any ideas who? Starmer fits 'dull and boring' but he doesn't appear to be any use whatsoever at listening to what the people want. If he wins the election, it will be because he's not the Tories, rather than people actually wanting him. (Compare with Blair, who for all his faults, people were initially enthusiastic about).

I think as has been discussed Starmer is deliberately being vague and wishy-washy in order not to annoy certain sectors of the electorate. The strategy seems to be to let the Tories self-destruct and win the election by default. Not an ideal strategy, true, but perhaps one which is most appropriate to the moment.

 

[najaB]

The strategy seems to be to let the Tories self-destruct and win the election by default. Not an ideal strategy, true, but perhaps one which is most appropriate to the moment.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he's busy making a mistake" comes to mind.

 

[nw1]

I agree here. Clarke was indeed a good chancellor.

I don't remember being annoyed by Clarke during the Major years which must say something, and there were certain members of the Major government who I did actively dislike. But I agree about him in general, the archetypal Sane Tory. The one Tory who voted against Article 50, something I will always remember about him.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What was the inflation rate 15 years ago? In real terms the interest rate is still negative as it's pretty much been since the crash in 2008.
Providing relief for mortgage holders, much as I'd appreciate it myself, is probably just injecting more money into an economy that already has too much.

On the subject of mortgages, I must confess I'm somewhat blown away by how sensible Labour's proposals to help with the problem are:

• Requiring lenders to allow borrowers to switch to interest only mortgage payments for a temporary period.
• Requiring lenders to allow borrowers to lengthen the term of their mortgage period.
• Requiring lenders to reverse any support measures when the borrower requests.
• Requiring lenders to wait a minimum of six months before initiating repossession proceedings.
• Instructing the FCA to urgently issue consumer guidance stating that borrowers making temporary switches to interest only mortgage payments and lengthening the term of their mortgage period should not see their credit score affected.

From this list, Labour isn't asking for more Government spending on bailouts that would ultimately make the financial crisis worse, but is instead suggesting requiring lenders to take action that is roughly financially neutral but reduces the likelihood or people losing their homes. I'm actually quite impressed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Very sensible, and a repeat of what Labour did in 2008. Forbearance is the most important thing for people- that they won’t lose their house if they can’t pay.

I’d like to see similar protections extended to tenants, as interest rate rises will hurt them even more, given buy-to-let mortgage interest rates are typically 2% or so higher than owner-occupier mortgage rates. Those rate rises will get passed on, and quickly, but tenants have no right to forbearance.

It’s the effect of interest rates on rent and, in turn, on inflation that the Bank of England don’t seem to comprehend. Their interest rate policy is embedding inflation. Landlords- understandably- will immediately pass on mortgage rises to their tenants.

And, of course, landlords who exercise forbearance should, in turn, receive it from their lender.

 

[MikeWM]

I’d agree, but the problem is “the consensus” is equally outlandish. Central banks have forgotten how to create stable economies.

I’d say the big problem has been the central banks, and not just the Bank of England, forgetting about basic economics.

The problem with the last 15 years has been quantitative easing. QE has been behind unrealistically low interest rates and it’s been behind the rampant asset inflation that has been left unchecked. All to avoid the banks facing the economic consequences of their behaviour. We are where we are because successive governments didn’t want to let the banks go bust.

And they haven’t got a clue how to fix the mess they’ve made. Like when any government prints money- which is all QE is- you end up with hyperinflation.

For that pillock Governor of the BoE to come on the news again this morning and blame working people for wanting a pay rise was disgraceful and shows just what an absolute halfwit he truly is.

He also clearly doesn’t understand that his economic policies have only benefitted those who own significant assets without borrowing. There’s only too much money in certain parts of the economy because of his asset hyperinflation.

Yes, I think this is all spot-on, I agree entirely.

What's the solution though? Should Government take back central bank economic policies in-house? I know it is terribly outlandish nowadays to even suggest such a thing, but it always seems rather odd to me that key planks of economic policy - one of the most important functions of government - are beyond direct democratic control. It was interesting that the very first action of the New Labour government in 1997 was to give away these powers, despite not being mentioned in the manifesto.

Gordon Brown didn’t have the stones to let the banks go bust.

I suppose no financial minister did either, apart from in Iceland (and they did rather well after the short-term pain - but it didn't stop Gordon Brown as PM invoking *terrorist* legislation against them for doing so!)

He was generally pretty competent, but that desire to protect the banks at all costs was weak.

Most of the large number of PFI schemes were a disaster waiting to happen though, and much of his reputation for being fiscally prudent was due to his 'cooking the books' with such PFI schemes that had nasty effects years later. Yes, other things have now intervened that make that look like a relative drop in the ocean, but it was still very poor.

--

She only had fifty days and spent most of them destroying economic confidence (likely for decades)…

Forty nine days was more than reasonable considering the absolute mess she and Kwarteng made of the UK economy in that short time. I dread to think what one extra day would have brought us, let alone whatever is considered a 'reasonable try'.

I'm still not convinced that what Truss and Kwarteng did was so terrible. She reversed the NI rise, tried to stop the corporation tax rise, and tried to reverse tax rates to Blair-era levels. And didn't go to the OBR, who are useless anyway and we got along perfectly well without them before 2010. There's nothing there that indicates the end of the world as we know it.

I have no idea what the markets got into such a tizzy about. Everything is worse now than it was then, but no-one seems to be concerned because 'grown-ups' Sunak and Hunt are now in charge, though seem to have no plan whatsoever other than wait and hope things get better. It's really quite odd.

--

I think as has been discussed Starmer is deliberately being vague and wishy-washy in order not to annoy certain sectors of the electorate. The strategy seems to be to let the Tories self-destruct and win the election by default. Not an ideal strategy, true, but perhaps one which is most appropriate to the moment.

But along with his u-turns from his campaign pledges in 2020, it makes him look like he doesn't believe in anything at all other than getting into power. Many people are looking on that very cyncially, and it will cost him votes. Yes, maybe less than having lots of specific positions that annoy various people. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It was interesting that the very first action of the New Labour government in 1997 was to give away these powers, despite not being mentioned in the manifesto.

It was really for the same reason that George Osborne set up the Office for Budget Responsibility- it was a political move to make them look sensible against what they characterised as their feckless predecessor. In neither case was the predecessor particularly feckless in reality, certainly Ken Clarke wasn’t- but it was sound politically to portray them as such.

Most of the large number of PFI schemes were a disaster waiting to happen though, and much of his reputation for being fiscally prudent was due to his 'cooking the books' with such PFI schemes

PFI wasn’t “cooking the books” exactly, it was more about adjusting government borrowing. If you borrow to invest the political discourse is that this is bad and this is irresponsible, but if you lease instead it doesn’t show up as borrowing. In theory the expenditure is the same, you’re just paying a lease instead of paying down a debt.

All PFI was really was a build-and-maintain contract. No different to what this government agreed with Hitachi for the IET and with Siemens for the Thameslink stock.

That’s not to say I think PFI is a good thing- it isn’t, it’s always more expensive- but it’s untrue to say it was some hare-brained idea cooked up by Brown that was never seen before or since.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2023 ==

But along with his u-turns from his campaign pledges in 2020, it makes him look like he doesn't believe in anything at all other than getting into power. Many people are looking on that very cyncially

I think we’ve seen in recent elections that the Tories will shamelessly steal the popular bits from Labour policy and then try and claim the credit for it. Even more importantly, it has worked for them. Things like utility price caps were a Labour idea that was terrible, but the Tories quickly changed their mind and claimed the credit when it bit with the electorate. Fair enough, that’s politics, but I get why Starmer won’t want to make it easy.

I fully agree with his strategy of keeping his cards close to his chest. Where’s the benefit of letting your opponent steal your ideas?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Very sensible, and a repeat of what Labour did in 2008. Forbearance is the most important thing for people- that they won’t lose their house if they can’t pay.

I’d like to see similar protections extended to tenants, as interest rate rises will hurt them even more, given buy-to-let mortgage interest rates are typically 2% or so higher than owner-occupier mortgage rates. Those rate rises will get passed on, and quickly, but tenants have no right to forbearance.

How could forbearance work for tenants? For mortgage holders it makes sense because all you're doing is - in effect - asking mortgage companies to extend the repayment terms on the loans that they have made: That means they aren't losing any money - the loan will still be repaid at a later date (or the house eventually repossessed a few years down the line), as well as the borrower paying more interest. But if a tenant can't pay their rent, then it's hardly fair on the landlord to expect them to let the tenant carry on living in their property rent free.

And, of course, landlords who exercise forbearance should, in turn, receive it from their lender.

I don't see how even that could work. If the tenant isn't paying rent then the landlord is actually losing money, so even if the lender agrees to extend the mortgage terms, the landlord is still losing money.

 

[MikeWM]

PFI wasn’t “cooking the books” exactly, it was more about adjusting government borrowing. If you borrow to invest the political discourse is that this is bad and this is irresponsible, but if you lease instead it doesn’t show up as borrowing. In theory the expenditure is the same, you’re just paying a lease instead of paying down a debt.

I suppose 'cooking the books' is a bit strong, but as you say, it stops things showing up as borroing. So Brown could claim he was sticking to his 'Golden Rule' while still building stuff. Which looks good in the short-term but stores up problems for later.

All PFI was really was a build-and-maintain contract. No different to what this government agreed with Hitachi for the IET and with Siemens for the Thameslink stock.

Yes, but if the cost agreed for maintenance is wildly over what someone else would charge to do it, then you're in a bad place. We've all heard the stories about hospitals where it costs £200 or whatever to change a light bulb.

That’s not to say I think PFI is a good thing- it isn’t, it’s always more expensive- but it’s untrue to say it was some hare-brained idea cooked up by Brown that was never seen before or since.

True - Major's government started it, but Brown expanded it massively.

I think we’ve seen in recent elections that the Tories will shamelessly steal the popular bits from Labour policy and then try and claim the credit for it. Even more importantly, it has worked for them. Things like utility price caps were a Labour idea that was terrible, but the Tories quickly changed their mind and claimed the credit when it bit with the electorate. Fair enough, that’s politics, but I get why Starmer won’t want to make it easy.

I fully agree with his strategy of keeping his cards close to his chest. Where’s the benefit of letting your opponent steal your ideas?

I agree that most specifics should wait for the manifesto, in part for the reason you say. But I don't even know what Starmer believes in, what's his philosophy? We need to have a vague idea of what sort of country he wants to create. (To be fair, the exact same could be said of Sunak, but when you have a government as poor as this one, you really want the opposition to be better, it shouldn't be that hard).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

PFI wasn’t “cooking the books” exactly, it was more about adjusting government borrowing. If you borrow to invest the political discourse is that this is bad and this is irresponsible, but if you lease instead it doesn’t show up as borrowing. In theory the expenditure is the same, you’re just paying a lease instead of paying down a debt.

I'm not sure that borrowing to invest has ever been seen as fiscally irresponsible if it's an investment that will give you a financial return. Borrowing to finance day-to-day consumption is, quite correctly, seen as very irresponsible. If I recall correctly, the other thing about PFI was that, in theory, it was bringing in private sector expertise. Of course as we all know the results didn't work out, but to be fair it hasn't been tried before so no-one quite knew how it would work. (Or perhaps that's a lesson against experimenting too much )

I think we’ve seen in recent elections that the Tories will shamelessly steal the popular bits from Labour policy and then try and claim the credit for it. Even more importantly, it has worked for them. Things like utility price caps were a Labour idea that was terrible, but the Tories quickly changed their mind and claimed the credit when it bit with the electorate. Fair enough, that’s politics, but I get why Starmer won’t want to make it easy.

I think it's more complex than that. Cameron and Osborne regarded the energy price cap as a terrible idea (and they were right: It was and still is a terrible idea that has been responsible for putting quite a few energy companies out of business and therefore significantly damaging competition. It's final legacy is likely to be long term higher prices than if the cap had never been put in place). But then Theresa May became Prime Minister and she had different, more interventionist, instincts, and was more comfortable with that kind of regulation.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm still not convinced that what Truss and Kwarteng did was so terrible. She reversed the NI rise, tried to stop the corporation tax rise, and tried to reverse tax rates to Blair-era levels. And didn't go to the OBR, who are useless anyway and we got along perfectly well without them before 2010.

The emphasis on cutting taxes for the rich alienated public opinion. Given that the OBR existed, the fact they were bypassed was a reason for the markets to be spooked, particularly when there was no obvious source of funding to replace those tax cuts. Effectively they were betting a lot on the supposition that those tax cuts would increase growth and ultimately tax revenue to pay off the loans, but it was highly questionable whether that would work when the lack of growth was down to other factors such as our long-term productivity deficit and Brexit. Cutting taxes puts more money into the economy, and if it isn't able to meet any resulting extra demand then prices just go up.

PFI wasn’t “cooking the books” exactly, it was more about adjusting government borrowing. If you borrow to invest the political discourse is that this is bad and this is irresponsible, but if you lease instead it doesn’t show up as borrowing. In theory the expenditure is the same, you’re just paying a lease instead of paying down a debt.

All PFI was really was a build-and-maintain contract. No different to what this government agreed with Hitachi for the IET and with Siemens for the Thameslink stock.

That’s not to say I think PFI is a good thing- it isn’t, it’s always more expensive- but it’s untrue to say it was some hare-brained idea cooked up by Brown that was never seen before or since.

In theory the increased efficiency of the private sector (motivated by profit and free of government bureaucracy) offsets the extra they have to pay for borrowing compared with a government. It's hard to think of any example where this has worked in practice though. This may in part be due to public sector clients not being able to identify the ways in which they are at risk, or trying to push risks onto the private sector that they can't control.

Possibly Brown would have relied less on PFI if he hadn't been beholden to the promise of maintaining the tax rates from the Major government. Things were relatively prosperous then and modest increases would probably have been tolerable, but (like Starmer now) Blair was terrified of giving the Tory press anything to latch onto during the campaign.

 

[MikeWM]

The emphasis on cutting taxes for the rich alienated public opinion. Given that the OBR existed, the fact they were bypassed was a reason for the markets to be spooked, particularly when there was no obvious source of funding to replace those tax cuts. Effectively they were betting a lot on the supposition that those tax cuts would increase growth and ultimately tax revenue to pay off the loans, but it was highly questionable whether that would work when the lack of growth was down to other factors such as our long-term productivity deficit and Brexit. Cutting taxes puts more money into the economy, and if it isn't able to meet any resulting extra demand then prices just go up.

I agree with all of that (well, apart from the reference to Brexit, which I think is highly speculative) - but that doesn't stop me from believing that the reaction was *incredibly* disproportionate to the fairly minor scale of the cuts proposed - especially when compared to, say, the current size of annual public borrowing, or the truly vast amounts of money thrown down the drain 'fighting' covid.

 

[nw1]

But along with his u-turns from his campaign pledges in 2020, it makes him look like he doesn't believe in anything at all other than getting into power.

Reminds me of a certain incumbent of the Chiltern Hundreds. And a lot of other politicians too, look at Streynsham Hunt, for instance, one time Remainer making extremist anti-EU comments to please the Conservative Party:

Jeremy Hunt rebuked by EU after Soviet prison comparison

Former UK Foreign Office leaders also condemn speech attacking EU over Brexit talks

www.theguardian.com

Many people are looking on that very cyncially, and it will cost him votes. Yes, maybe less than having lots of specific positions that annoy various people. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I would still be amazed if the Tories won yet another majority in 2024. If they did, that would raise very, very serious concerns about democracy in this country. If they can get in again now, with all their unpopularity they're likely to be in semi-permanently unless the opposition can find a very charismatic leader - and I can see significant social unrest occurring in the next parliament as many on the left or even centre start getting seriously concerned about the direction of our country and the absolute domination of one party. And of course the Tories will never ditch FPTP, not in a million years.

I suspect many of the people who don't like Starmer will just stay at home. I don't think Sunak and the Tories have got enough positive points to attract people to them, particularly if they continue to adopt an unsympathetic attitude to people's financial problems.

 

[MikeWM]

Reminds me of a certain incumbent of the Chiltern Hundreds. And a lot of other politicians too, look at Streynsham Hunt, for instance, one time Remainer making extremist anti-EU comments to please the Conservative Party:

Pretty much all politicians of every stripe, I'd say, and that's a big problem.

I would still be amazed if the Tories won yet another majority in 2024. If they did, that would raise very, very serious concerns about democracy in this country. If they can get in again now, with all their unpopularity they're likely to be in semi-permanently unless the opposition can find a very charismatic leader - and I can see significant social unrest occurring in the next parliament as many on the left or even centre start getting seriously concerned about the direction of our country and the absolute domination of one party. And of course the Tories will never ditch FPTP, not in a million years.

I think there was the potential at one point a few months ago of a 1992-style slim Tory win, but Sunak really does seem to be floundering and not have any direction whatever, at a time when something positive is urgently needed. So I think the moment has passed and Labour are well on course to win 'by default' because, while they're not very good at all, the Tories are worse.

I suspect many of the people who don't like Starmer will just stay at home. I don't think Sunak and the Tories have got enough positive points to attract people to them, particularly if they continue to adopt an unsympathetic attitude to people's financial problems.

I suspect you're right, I think more than enough Tories will sit on their hands or vote for a minor party to totally scupper their chances of winning next year.

There is a serious risk that the lack of enthusiasm for *anyone* leads to Starmer getting in with a fairly large majority but with the support of very little of the population - even worse than Blair in 2005 with 35% of the vote with only 61% voting (ie. less than 22% of the electorate). In that case, yes, 'winner takes all', but it isn't much of a mandate.

 

[Typhoon]

There is a serious risk that the lack of enthusiasm for *anyone* leads to Starmer getting in with a fairly large majority but with the support of very little of the population - even worse than Blair in 2005 with 35% of the vote with only 61% voting (ie. less than 22% of the electorate). In that case, yes, 'winner takes all', but it isn't much of a mandate.

This is speculation but I suspect Starmer is less likely to let it go to his head than Blair. The Blair government made significant reforms - minimum wage. maternity and paternity rights, holiday entitlement for workers, LGBT rights - including civil partnerships, devolution plus increases to the number of police officers, doctors, nurses, teachers - the sort of thing Johnson could only chant about but he seemed to exclude anyone outside of his inner circle as if he was in some way always right, that he had some sort of vision of where he was going to lead us; one very sound reason why I supported my MP, Lynne Jones, who probably offered a more spirited opposition to Blair than the likes of Duncan-Smith or Howard. I think Starmer would be more sensitive to the opinions of others and less of the vision thing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But if a tenant can't pay their rent, then it's hardly fair on the landlord to expect them to let the tenant carry on living in their property rent free.

It’s perfectly fair on the landlord if the reason why the tenant can’t pay in full is because the landlord has whacked the rent up.

As the Governor of the Bank of England says, it’s irresponsible for businesses to whack prices up to protect their profit percentage margins in a time of high inflation. He’s not wrong- it’s the only sensible thing he’s said.

I’m actually a landlord (one property in the UK). My tenant couldn’t pay their rent in full during Covid because he’s a restaurateur. So we agreed he pay what he could- about 75%, as it turned out- with the remainder to be resolved at a later date. The tenant wasn’t “living for free”. There was a debt, which was repaid from the deposit when the tenant departed, but it was less than if we’d gone all in on serving notice and the tenant had stopped paying entirely.

The property we have now isn’t mortgaged and so we haven’t put the rent up as we’ve got a very good tenant.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2023 ==

they were right: It was and still is a terrible idea that has been responsible for putting quite a few energy companies out of business

Nah, that was due to energy companies agreeing to long-term cheap contracts with customers without protecting themselves with long-term hedges with producers. Rightly they were expected to abide by these contracts but, because they’d not hedged, they were selling at a loss.

The price cap never resulted in suppliers selling at a loss, despite their wibbling.

What the price cap did do is stop suppliers from rinsing people on standard tariffs to pay for these loss-making fixes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2023 ==

Possibly Brown would have relied less on PFI if he hadn't been beholden to the promise of maintaining the tax rates from the Major government. Things were relatively prosperous then and modest increases would probably have been tolerable

Brown presented an overall surplus for a few years in the early 2000s, with the Tories naturally criticising this as showing the tax take was too high.

 

[edwin_m]

well, apart from the reference to Brexit, which I think is highly speculative

Brexit has hit growth because international businesses will prefer to locate where they have good access to a wider market to buy and sell what they need, and a large labour pool to hire the right people. In fact a lot of UK companies that do business with the EU have had to set up in the EU, doing work that would otherwise have been done in the UK. Without access to the wider market, even if the demand is there for their products, they won't be able to expand in the UK and a big driver of growth has gone. As imports from the EU are also more difficult then it's likely there will be scarcity of products, and prices will rise especially if there is also too much money in the economy.

 

[DC1989]

One thing that I find interesting is that the government don't even seem to be trying to do anything. I realise their internal coalition is weak but they are not passing anything through parliament. It's just going to be 18 months of complete stagnation until the next election. If the tories can't pass any legislation now with a 70+ seat majority what hope do they have if they squeak out a tiny majority at the next election?

 

[nlogax]

One thing that I find interesting is that the government don't even seem to be trying to do anything. I realise their internal coalition is weak but they are not passing anything through parliament. It's just going to be 18 months of complete stagnation until the next election. If the tories can't pass any legislation now with a 70+ seat majority what hope do they have if they squeak out a tiny majority at the next election?

This government is clearly riding the 'can't be arsed' train up to the next general election. Sunak is truly a lame duck PM and he knows it. For the sake of the country I wish he'd call a GE now but I don't see that happening either.

 

[nw1]

One thing that I find interesting is that the government don't even seem to be trying to do anything. I realise their internal coalition is weak but they are not passing anything through parliament. It's just going to be 18 months of complete stagnation until the next election. If the tories can't pass any legislation now with a 70+ seat majority what hope do they have if they squeak out a tiny majority at the next election?

True, but I think it'll be less than 18 months now, even if they go for an October election it's not all that much more than a year. They won't want a midwinter election even if they are legally able to hold one.

 

[MikeWM]

Brexit has hit growth because international businesses will prefer to locate where they have good access to a wider market to buy and sell what they need, and a large labour pool to hire the right people. In fact a lot of UK companies that do business with the EU have had to set up in the EU, doing work that would otherwise have been done in the UK. Without access to the wider market, even if the demand is there for their products, they won't be able to expand in the UK and a big driver of growth has gone. As imports from the EU are also more difficult then it's likely there will be scarcity of products, and prices will rise especially if there is also too much money in the economy.

I agree there will be some element of that, but I'm not sure how possible it is quantify the effect of that compared to, say, the impact of high corporation tax. Of course there is nothing to stop companies setting up here and still following EU rules if they choose to do so - admittedly with a bit more bureaucracy than before. And conversely we can attract other companies that don't want or need to follow EU rules because they're not going to export their products to the EU.

--

One thing that I find interesting is that the government don't even seem to be trying to do anything.

It does seem odd, I agree.

 

[nw1]

This government is clearly riding the 'can't be arsed' train up to the next general election. Sunak is truly a lame duck PM and he knows it. For the sake of the country I wish he'd call a GE now but I don't see that happening either.

In cases like this it almost seems like there needs to be more legislation to force governments in this sort of situation to just hold the damned election.

Four-year terms would help in that respect; a 20% reduction of maximum term is quite significant.

 

[Snow1964]

This week should get the Boundary commission changes (required by 1st July) to Speaker of House, then final version will be announced. Have 4 months to enact it via Privy Council.

Although some MPs have been quiet, our local one (Michelle Donelan) must have hinted she wants to jump ship from Chippenham (to new Melksham and Devizes, which covers part of her current area), as there is a vacancy for local Conservative parliamentary candidate.

Not sure how many other Conservative MPs looking to move to safer part of their areas when available

Wiltshire MP decides which seat to stand for after '50/50 split'

CHIPPENHAM MP Michelle Donelan is to fight the new parliamentary constituency of Melksham & Devizes for the Conservative Party in the next…

www.gazetteandherald.co.uk

 

[nw1]

This week should get the Boundary commission changes (required by 1st July) to Speaker of House, then final version will be announced. Have 4 months to enact it via Privy Council.

Although some MPs have been quiet, our local one (Michelle Donelan) must have hinted she wants to jump ship from Chippenham (probably to new Melksham and Devizes, which covers part of her current area), as there is a vacancy for local Conservative parliamentary candidate.

Is Melksham and Devizes not a replacement for the existing Devizes constituency? What happens to it?

 

[Snow1964]

Is Melksham and Devizes not a replacement for the existing Devizes constituency? What happens to it?

Wiltshire is effectively gaining a constituency due to people moving in (strictly there is a newly shared one with south Gloucestershire).

The current Devizes constituency includes huge rural area that becomes new East Wiltshire. Melksham and Bradford-on-Avon are currently part of oversize Chippenham constituency which are proposed to join with Devizes.

 

[Thirteen]

True, but I think it'll be less than 18 months now, even if they go for an October election it's not all that much more than a year. They won't want a midwinter election even if they are legally able to hold one.

Not wanting to campaign in the colder months and during Christmas is why I think October would be the latest for a GE and even then I still think May or June is more likely.