Best Of

This seems a reasonable proposition.
What are the arguments against ?

Today, I've written the foreword to a new @LabourTogether & @BritishProgress report asking the question - how can we get Heathrow expansion off the ground rapidly & democratically?

The answer: pass a public bill through Parliament within a year.
https://x.com/Dan4Barnet/status/1942114934789194079

He makes the point that despite the government committing to major national projects like Sizewell, or Heathrow, they can then be tied up in planning, and judicial reviews, for at least half a decade, often longer.

Parliament could cut that time to a year simply by voting on a bill in favour of a particular project.
Is there any good reason that should not happen ?

As I understand it, that's how the Victorian Railway and Canal Bills worked - in those days the courts challenging Parliament was pretty rare, and the courts said that an Act of Parliament was The Law.

So it was pretty much primary legislation. Nearly all the bunfights and deals were done before the Acts passed.

These days, it would be taken as a massive Attack On Legal Freedom. The Enquiry Industrial Complex is worth many billions.

Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.

Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement

So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off

One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -

Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.

Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do

Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.

There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.

Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.

No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.

We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.

We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want

If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?

Any contributions made as an employee count

And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?

Do you even know how to work it out?

Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!

No, I don't. We already have it!

You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.

What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?

The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.

To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.

We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.

Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting

Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.

Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?

Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.

Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.

As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare

So you believe people whose NI was £0.00 in the past two years would be denied JSA?

You are wrong.

I would be delighted with actually having contributory welfare, but we do not have it today, and you are deluded if you think NI is contributory.

If they had not worked as an employee they would be denied JSA and the vast majority of JSA claimants will have made class 1 NI contributions.

You don't want contributory welfare, even to the limited extend we have it now for most JSA and state pension claimants via NI, hence you want to scrap it.

I am sure a place can be found for you in Corbyn and Sultana's new party where you can scream for everlasting dependency culture and non contributory welfare to your hearts content!

If they have worked as an employee and had NI deductions of £0.00 per annum they're still entitled to the JSA and pension.

I have no desire to scrap any contribution systems that actually exists, but what part of we do not have any contributory welfare are you too thick to understand?

You could merge income tax and NI rates, set all NI tax rates to nil and keep all the "contributions" requirements that we have today.

You scrap NI, you end contributory welfare overnight even the small amount we do have.

JSA would cease to exist as no NI contributions would have been made for it and instead all unemployment claimants would just be on taxpayer funded UC without ever needing to have worked before and been an employee either. The state pension would also just be means tested pensions credit solely funded by tax too.

As I said, you are too leftwing even for Starmer, you belong in Corbyn's new party!

Um no it wouldn’t - the contribution would be based on paying (some) income tax.

But that’s irrelevant because both Bart and myself have pointed out that the point you start qualifying for JSA is well below the point that a worker starts paying any form of income based tax

Any idea on why our usual squad of reporters on ghastly crimes have been so tardy on posting anything about this incident?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4eq9yelk5o

Not a clue. Do you have a theory?

murders of black people don't tend to feature heavily on the usual alt-right social media feeds

I don't even know what an 'alt right social media feed' is, so I can't comment directly. However, two points: on murders like the one you mention there is usually nothing worthwhile to say as the media print the press release and nothing more is available. So apart from repeating how terrible murder is, which we knew, there isn't anything to add.

Most murders don't get national attention.

Any idea on why our usual squad of reporters on ghastly crimes have been so tardy on posting anything about this incident?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4eq9yelk5o

Not a clue. Do you have a theory?

murders of black people don't tend to feature heavily on the usual alt-right social media feeds

Oh my god we’re so racist because we aren’t discussing murder of black people in the UK as much as (or should it be in proportion to population ratio) white people.

I’m not sure we discuss many murders unless they are particularly remarkable but I’m hoping you feel magnificent trying to turn a tragic event into some moral one-upmanship, I’m guessing it’s what her family would want.

I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.

If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate

You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.

Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.

You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.

He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.

I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority

Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.

Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it

If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?

No, Reform won Basildon even last year

"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.

And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either

I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.

Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough

Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area?
Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.

I am sure you know them both well.

You’re on form today.

JD Vance criticizes “American leaders” who pick a side in the war in Ukraine:

“Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Ukraine] is the good guy and this [Russia] is the bad guy.”
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1941304164119953667

We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".

That might just get through.

Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”

There are Americans who think FDR was lulled into the war by Churchill's oratory and British propaganda.

I recently discovered MAGAs who think Pearl Harbor (sic) was a false flag attack.

JD Vance criticizes “American leaders” who pick a side in the war in Ukraine:

“Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Ukraine] is the good guy and this [Russia] is the bad guy.”
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1941304164119953667

We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".

That might just get through.

Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”

There are Americans who think FDR was lulled into the war by Churchill's oratory and British propaganda.

Pearl Harbor waves Hello!

I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.

If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate

You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.

Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.

You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.

He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.

I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority

Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.

Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it

If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?

No, Reform won Basildon even last year

"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.

And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either

I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.

Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough

Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area?
Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.