Best Of

Ed Davey boycotts the state dinner and Trump dies of shock.

LibDems winning here!!!

I've never understood how people could tolerate the State banquets of the 19th century, with seven or eight courses, each with their own wine, followed by port and brandy, and the room cloudy with cigar smoke, and everyone wearing uncomfortable evening clothes.

In fact, Felix Faure, French President, didn't. He collapses and died, after having sex with his mistress, straight after presiding over a banquet.

This is why you must never, ever, have strenuous sex with your mistress immediately after eight courses, wine, port, brandy, and a Cuban cigar.

It's a rule I have lived by, and it has served me well.

A couple of difficulties with a Corbyn candidacy from the Devolution Bill (assuming it passes, which is a pretty safe bet with a large Labour majority):

1. The Mayor of London will no longer be able to be a sitting MP. That's fine for Corbyn standing, but he'd need to resign his seat to take the job if elected. Corbyn loves being an MP - it's all he's ever known and it's his world. It also makes it hard for him to "lead" his party - he cannot be his party's PM designate or whatever as Mayor of London (and for the same reason, Farage wouldn't stand).

2. The electoral system is returning to supplementary vote (which the original tweet seems to miss with reference to "a four-way split"). Extreme candidates are less well-placed on second preferences.

I think there are other problems with a Corbyn run. He's never shown any real interest in or views on municipal government - get him onto workers rights for Bolivian tin miners or whatever, and he won't shut up... electriification of the SL4 route and the pros and cons of floating bus stops, not so much. Contrast Ken Livingstone back in the day - similarly left wing but authentically interested in London. It's also quite a constrained role that requires compromise and deals with government - it just doesn't come with an ability to implement radical left ideas.

Whilst it could be a trading bet - if Corbyn's party does reasonably well in local elections in May, presumably his odds will come in. But I really don't see him running or winning if he does.

Some hyper local news. Depressingly I’m pretty sure we’ll see copy cat events in the near future.

https://x.com/thecourieruk/status/1961452543868797030?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

I can't read the article, but here's another agnle:

"THE man who filmed a viral incident in Dundee in which a schoolgirl allegedly brandished a knife and axe has spoken out amid a rush of far-right misinformation."

""A 12-year-old girl has been charged with being in possession of offensive weapons. She will be referred to the relevant authorities and our enquiries are ongoing."

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25424288.dundee-migrant-centre-far-right-misinformation-row-speaks/

It's a good job we don't have a far-right poster who tells us all to seek out the true story, but who is too frit to tell us the story himself....

I am old enough to remember when right wingers would clutch their pearls at teenagers carrying bladed weapons.

'Would you support or oppose requiring landlords to pay National Insurance on rental income?

Support: 48%
Oppose: 27%'

60% of Labour and 56% of LDs in favour.

48% of Reform voters opposed and 30% in favour, 42% of Tory voters opposed and 36% in favour
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1961451968502673874

I support NI and tax being combined so that ALL earnings are subject to the same amounts of tax.

However as others have pointed out, I wonder what this polling would be if the question was

"Would you support or oppose the Government imposing an 8% tax increase on all rents".

Because this, in effect, is what would happen.

I agree on that last point, not the first as I what NI hypothecated to fund the state pension and JSA and maybe some health and social care

And what happens if the hypothecated tax is insufficient to cover expenditure?

It shouldn't be, because everybody gets a state pension equivalent to what they paid in and contributions based JSA based on what they paid in.

Most OECD nations also fund most healthcare via state provided insurance.

If you haven't paid in enough for a state pension or JSA if unemployed, income tax can still fund pension credit and universal credit for you

This is simply not true. Even at the most basic level.

The earnings level to count as contributing to your state pension is £125 a week.
However you don't actually have to start paying any NI until you earn at least £242 a week.

So there are a group of low paid workers (roughly those earning between £6500 and £12500 a year) who are qualifying towards getting their full state pension (35 years of contributions) but do not actually pay any NI.

NI was created in 1911 to fund unemployment benefit and state pensions and some health benefits (pre income tax funded NHS).

You could easily include those earning between £6500 and £12500 in those required to pay NI too in order to get the state pension.

If they don't want to do that they can opt out and just get taxpayer funded pension credit instead

Your point is... well pointless. Income tax was first levied in the early 19th century to pay for the wars with France. That hasn't stopped it being expanded to cover all manner of GIvernment expenditure. The fact that a tax was initially levied for a particular purpose does not mean that, more than 100 years afterwards, it is still ringfenced for that purpose.

NI goes into general Goverment expenditure which includes Pensions and healthcare. We should recognise that reality and now merge them so that everyone is paying the same amount of taxation on the same amount of income, whatever its source.