Best Of

Widespread support for the triple lock on the BBC news article. Lots of entitlement, lots of talk about it being too low.

This country is nearly ungovernable.

See this poll from last year (source) which showed that over a quarter of people think MPs expenses are amongst the top 3 costs for government.

We overlook this massively when analysing politics - an absolute ton of voters are very disconnected from fiscal reality.

Algarkirk hit the nail on the head in saying "Time for a grown up PM, quite prepared to risk being a one term wonder, to go on all media every week for 10 minutes to tell the truth and explain the problems and the plan. When it has a plan.

At this point Starmer and Labour might genuinely have a better chance in 2029 by sticking to their guns on widespread reform of the above, hoping that the bond markets etc decisively back their bravery, and that the people start to see the benefits of this action in 2029. Instead they are left hoping for a sudden growth miracle, or FPTP and a divided opposition seeing them squeak out another majority.

Problem is Starmer and Reeves get it but a significant chunk of the PLP are fiscal dunces who will always vote against any change.

They could be a lot more effective at selling a cohesive vision.

The WFA situation was part of this.

If there was a much more consistent narrative that "We can't just keep paying tons to rich pensioners who often don't need it, when 27% of pensioners are in millionaire households - but we want to make sure we can still pay for those who need it" - then maybe it's easier to overturn the triple lock too.

Parties of all stripes are too scared of losing the grey vote. Quite frankly - Labour should be prepared to lose 2029 if it means delivering the long term reform this country needs

I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.

Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.

I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.

People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.

When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.

But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?

We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.

Somehow we need to snap out of it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ev1z6d5go

Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?

It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England

We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back

Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .

I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.

But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.

It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.

I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire.
Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.

This is silly

It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that

The Normans also brought a lot to the English language

Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.

If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman

They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia

But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy

Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day

All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it

Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony

There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...

Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?

You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong

I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids

Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless

Glad you are enjoying Norway

That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.

Now can you have a word with @HYUFD .

You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest

God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.

I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.

But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.

So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.

So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.

In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did

Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.

I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes

But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.

You have no idea about any of this do you?

Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA

I just popped in only to see your still at it after at least 2 days

Please can you give us all a break and move on

It is intensely tedious

He's painted himself into yet another corner Big_G, it could go on all week.

The one thing you can guarantee with HY is that he will never admit he is wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ev1z6d5go

Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?

It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England

We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back

Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .

I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.

But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.

It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.

I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire.
Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.

This is silly

It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that

The Normans also brought a lot to the English language

Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.

If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman

They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia

But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy

Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day

All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it

Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony

There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...

Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?

You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong

I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids

Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless

Glad you are enjoying Norway

That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.

Now can you have a word with @HYUFD .

You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest

God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.

I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.

But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.

So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.

So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.

In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did

Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.

I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes

But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.

You have no idea about any of this do you?

Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA

I just popped in only to see your still at it after at least 2 days

Please can you give us all a break and move on

It is intensely tedious