Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The correct and decent response to Reeves's obvious distress. Especially compared to Badenoch's nasty digs. You expect no better from her.

Here's another.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 6:31 pm It isn't just homes by any means. We've struggled to get anything done. It's roads (we have the right number of those already). It's new nuclear (we want renewables instead). It's renewables of any scale (just put them on car parks). It's high speed rail (reopen the Beeching line by my house, provided it's not too near my house). If we lack any collective will to deal with the population rise, I think it's reasonable to be cautious.

Heard it argued that this kind reactionary and backward politics is another consequence of an ageing electorate. I feel increased anxiety for the world after I'm dead and drawn to more radical environmental progress as I get older. So am I some kind of weird outlier?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:26 pm Here's another.

Look at the comments on each of those threads, the Tories and SNP trying to out cunt each other.

No, but I think the determination to get the infrastructure actually built is very fragile. See the Lib Dem MP pushing a nature bill which will make large scale renewables much harder, and the stick the Government got for not being supportive. I've got Greens locally who think there's too much housing planned in our village which has a rail station.

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:43 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:26 pm Here's another.

Look at the comments on each of those threads, the Tories and SNP trying to out cunt each other.

Wonder how many are real people or bot farms just pumping out bile to make readers depressed. It works on me.

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:30 pm I feel increased anxiety for the world after I'm dead and drawn to more radical environmental progress as I get older. So am I some kind of weird outlier?

Nope, I'm getting the same too. I don't want to leave a virtually-uninhabitable planet for my great-nephews; I don't want them to feel great-Uncle Boiler ruined the planet for them.

Reeves has properly done it now. She's being criticized by Martin Lewis.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/ ... isa-limit/

Lewis is supposed to be a "just the facts, Mam" commentator, isn't he?

Martin Lewis: Cash ISA limit could be cut – 'this isn’t nudge economics, it’s likely just piss people off economics'

The substance is Reeves wants more investment in equities, and subsidizing people to invest in ISAs (which I do every year) doesn't make obvious sense. So a tax policy to encourage that? Apparently not.

Now, I should note, I am in favour of encouraging people to invest. It's good for individuals over the longer term and for the economy, especially if a way is found to encourage people to invest in UK firms. And we do have a problem with risk appetite in the UK.

Yet this isn't the route to do that. I'll be disappointed if the Chancellor chooses to listen to the big investment firms in the City, and shut down many building societies and consumer groups who've said it's not a good route.

The truth is things would likely shift, so in future there would be more cash and quasi-cash options via shares ISAs for those who are more financially sophisticated. Yet that is just perverting the market, making it more complex and unsurprisingly favours the big city institutions over building societies and challenger banks.

Instead, let's start a conversation about how we encourage investments – even possible intervention when people save to explain other options. We need to educate, provide better one-on-one easy guidance, and start to change the way people think about risk.

But let's use the carrot, not a stick.

Not really a stick, is it? "We're going to stop giving you so much free money every year". It's a lot of free money as Martin concedes.

I don't care how much education about investing you give me, If I can stick my money in an ISA every year, I'll do that, and there'll be less investment for equities. If it changes, I'll either have to pay tax on the interest or I'll have to learn more about investing.

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:52 pm
Nope, I'm getting the same too. I don't want to leave a virtually-uninhabitable planet for my great-nephews; I don't want them to feel great-Uncle Boiler ruined the planet for them.

How do you feel when you look at the state of politics? Obviously Andrea Jenkyns Lincolnshire voters are beyond the pale, but I don't just mean them. I see lots on the progressive side who are more serious about their local farmland than strategic stuff that needs to happen.

I made the mistake of looking at Martin Lewis on Facebook. Apparently anything short of taxpayer subsidized saving for life is "unfair to older people". Apparently they're all going to die next year, so can't take the risk of equities where they might have a bad year. They could of course pay the tax, which is probably what I'll do.

More austerity.

Not Robert Shrimsley again. "Iron Chancellor" means sticking to rules. Which I think she's very likely to do.

Yeah, but Rachel Reeves cried.

From Matthew Lloyd Wright on Substack

Regardless of the reasons, the rebel Labour MPs have inflicted political and economic costs by publicly clashing with their own government and forcing a retreat on flagship welfare reforms. Many electoral experts argue that perceived leadership competency and economic credibility play an important role in electoral success in British general elections.

Recent headlines will damage these perceptions. Despite declining print readership, newspaper headlines still shape much of the public debate across TV, radio, podcasts and other media. They also provide material for political opponents’ attack leaflets.

This defeat, inflicted from within, is not good parliamentary democracy or a step towards stronger government policy as some Labour optimists have suggested. It undermines the Labour government and the carefully rebuilt brand forged in opposition under Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, Morgan McSweeney and others.

The leadership must now balance the need to re-establish discipline and create unity whilst avoiding the perception that public policy arguments will be rewarded. The infographics below showcase some of the damaging headlines facing the Labour Government, challenging Starmer’s leadership competency and Labour’s fiscal credibility.

Not sure that the electorate particularly care about the defeat, and what it implies. They'll care about the extra taxes, no doubt, but the Tories and Reform position on tax cuts may not be convincing either.

It is possible the PIP spending rises aren't as much as projected. That would be handy.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:27 pm Yeah, but Rachel Reeves cried.

Some big Right to Buy restrictions in there. They can't really bad completely because "blah blah hypocrite Rayner".

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 11:25 pm

Some big Right to Buy restrictions in there. They can't really bad completely because "blah blah hypocrite Rayner".

Tutivillus has been busy here just lately.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 8:11 pm

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:52 pm
Nope, I'm getting the same too. I don't want to leave a virtually-uninhabitable planet for my great-nephews; I don't want them to feel great-Uncle Boiler ruined the planet for them.

How do you feel when you look at the state of politics? Obviously Andrea Jenkyns Lincolnshire voters are beyond the pale, but I don't just mean them. I see lots on the progressive side who are more serious about their local farmland than strategic stuff that needs to happen.

Saddened. Round here there is lots and lots of green countryside and farmland. Ever-greater numbers of people driving EVs, and more often than not large ones (but kudos to the owner of the Kermit-green Renault 5 I saw yesterday). There are proposals for several solar farms, the one nearest being Mallard Pass. The campaigns against that are very vocal indeed. Quite how they reconcile driving an EV with opposition to renewable power I do not know, unless all these EVs are company cars where the tax incentives are pretty impressive - as a result, my niece has a BMW iX (and they're *huge*) as her company car.

Being flat around here, there are a few wind turbines on the land. We could use a few more but you could guarantee opposition to it.

Similarly, there is a group called Pylons East Anglia who want pylons offshore. Mmmm, salt water and steel, and quite possibly electrical leakage to earth so electrolysis too. That'll make 'em last...

The one thing that doesn't seem to have caused too much upset is the "water grid" installed by Anglian Water under their Strategic Pipelines initiative, an example being here.

The big political issue of course is that it being mostly affluent rural, it's also very, very Tory so 'conservatism' is rife. Places like Boston and Skeggy - neglected areas with poor educational achievement - were overwhelmed by East European migration in the early 2000s and it sowed a lot of resentment by the locals, hence the success of Reform here.

Just over the border in Cambridgeshire, there is ongoing residential development at Great Haddon which has taken a lot of farmland out of use - this will likely end up as a commuter dormitory given its immediate proximity to the A1(M). There is also ongoing development of land reclaimed from the brickyards.

The demographics of Peterborough and Stamford are very, very different though.

Good to hear that the water grid is going ok at least. Sunak and Starmer both deserve credit for increasing investment for water in this 5 year period starting now. Not very popular though, seeing bills are rising.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:26 pm Here's another.

The comments, unsurprisingly, not so much.