Best Of

The Liberal Democrats are considering ditching their longstanding opposition to ID cards amid reports Sir Keir Starmer is set push ahead with a digital scheme.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y44pekj28o

"ID cards" you say? Surely there must be an incoming vanity by election for Goole and Pocklington.

I’ve always said I’m in favour of ID cards, if the following conditions are met:

1) They’re issued for free

2) You don’t have to carry them at all times

3) You can use them chip and pin to access all government services - so they would replace passports and driving licences, not augment them

4) That you had the power to access all information the government holds on you, and amend it where it is wrong

5) That civil servants who access your data are logged, and you can see who they are and why they accessed it

6) That if somebody has accessed your data inappropriately you have the right to take legal action against them, funded by the government.

1 won't happen (deficit)

2 would see the police lose interest.

3 would be a bit of a pain to implement.

And numbers 4-6 will not happen while any civil servant breathes air.

So - I oppose them.

Of course, all those sectors and jobs are for the bright graduates- and do nothing for the 80% - but they do pay all the tax revenue that pays for everything else.

How does the UK build strength in depth? Good jobs for everyone, including those not educated to tertiary level?

We could copy the German and Swiss (and to a lesser extent Norwegian and Danish) educational system, that ensures that people reach adulthood with practcal, marketable, valuable skills?

And we could -perhaps- combine that with changing the tax and benefits system, to move to a more contributory system (say no benefits until at least three years of NI contributions), while simultaneously ensuring that marginal tax rates never exceed 50%.

I would also suggest the government cease trying to do 'deals', and instead sets up the business and regulatory systems to minimze friction. Basically, less government rather than more.

We could then combine this with properly funding the criminal justice system, and focusing again on crimes that affect peoples' day-to-day lives (like shoplifting and scrotes on illegal ebikes).

Finally, we should get rid of the absurd stamp duty system tthat discourages the market from clearing, and replace it with a property tax. (Yes, I know that's going to be unpopular with some people, but sorry.)

So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.

Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.

Fresh from telling everyone that they shouldn’t feel sorry for Biden with his advanced cancer cos he’s a SOB. Trump really has no redeeming feature, I would actually enjoy giving him a really hard kick in the baws.

https://x.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1969611068218442133?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

That's what's always struck me. Not that he's so awful in so many different ways - you get people like that - but that there are zero redeeming qualities. Not a single one. That is extremely rare in a human being.

Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock

They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing

The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.

Many opt to damage the national interest instead.

The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.

Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.

The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.

Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.

Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.

Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.

Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.

not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot

Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.

But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.

Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?

Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.

I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.

A flat rate of relief for everyone, higher than the 20% basic rate, would encourage ordinary people to save.

Meanwhile it’s another super hot day up here in the mountains: