Best Of

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

I am still in wild ecstatic warlike Dionysian Thrace. The archaeological museum here in Sofia is a gem - it has a vault of metal treasure which is basically Homer turned into iron and gold

The thracians were the brutal northern neighbours of the Greeks. Yet the Greeks needed their militant barbarity to become truly great - they absorbed the spirit of the north and harnessed it

Isn’t this true of almost every major European society? The Romans had the Germans. The franks the Norse. The Slavs the rus. The English the Scots

Even the Welsh have the north Welsh - in their mountain fastnesses, preserving the language

Every “civilised” nation needs a group of people they can use to break heads on their behalf. Contrary to popular belief, the Germans and Scandinavians who took service with the Romans were mostly very
loyal to them, and only revolted when faced with betrayal by their employers.

Even in Camden and Primrose Hill we look at the barbarian northerners - Kentish Town, Gospel Oak - with a definite wariness. Tinged with respect for their aggression

It's probably linked to quality of agricultural land. The richer the agricultural land, the greater the attraction of the soft life: the poorer the land, the more earning a living by fighting for/with your rich neighbours becomes attractive. And in Europe at least, in general, the further south you go, the more people the land supports. (There are exceptions of course, like mountainous areas - but the Swiss were always used as mercenaries, so the same logic applies.)
If this is true, there's probably a point at which it is flipped. Perhaps the Arabs - poor herders from their desert wastes - performed a similar role for the Ottomans?

The Mamluks largely did the job for the Ottomans - slave mercenaries originally from the Eurasian Steppe so hard people from a hard landscape.

Israel sets out plans for the world's largest concentration camp.*
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah


*For the avoidance of doubt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.

Once the beach side bars, hotels and casinos start rolling it’ll be fine. Perhaps fetching striped uniforms for the waiters and maids (which will be the maximum status that Gazans can expect)?

...In a letter responding to their claims, the office of Israel’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, said that displacing Palestinians or concentrating the population in one part of Gaza were not among the objectives of the operation.

That statement was directly contradicted by Katz, said Prof Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The defence minister laid out clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Goldberg said, and the creation of “a concentration camp or a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them”.

“It is neither humanitarian nor a city,” he said of Katz’s planned holding area for Palestinians.

“A city is a place where you have possibilities of work, of earning money, of making connections and freedom of movement.

“There are hospitals, schools, universities and offices. This is not what they have in mind. It will not be a livable place, just as the ‘safe areas’ are unliveable now.”..

I think we’re only days from Netanyahu’s government talking about “special treatment”, “evacuation”, and “resettlement” for the inhabitants of Gaza.

'Remigration' seems to be the new term for this in Europe.

Israel sets out plans for the world's largest concentration camp.*
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah


*For the avoidance of doubt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.

Once the beach side bars, hotels and casinos start rolling it’ll be fine. Perhaps fetching striped uniforms for the waiters and maids (which will be the maximum status that Gazans can expect)?

...In a letter responding to their claims, the office of Israel’s chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, said that displacing Palestinians or concentrating the population in one part of Gaza were not among the objectives of the operation.

That statement was directly contradicted by Katz, said Prof Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The defence minister laid out clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Goldberg said, and the creation of “a concentration camp or a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them”.

“It is neither humanitarian nor a city,” he said of Katz’s planned holding area for Palestinians.

“A city is a place where you have possibilities of work, of earning money, of making connections and freedom of movement.

“There are hospitals, schools, universities and offices. This is not what they have in mind. It will not be a livable place, just as the ‘safe areas’ are unliveable now.”..

I think we’re only days from Netanyahu’s government talking about “special treatment”, “evacuation”, and “resettlement” for the inhabitants of Gaza.

To unspecified locations in the east.
Perhaps they can have a conference in a beautiful villa by a lake to finalise the details.

FPT

Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA

I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have

Answer the questions above then:

a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.

Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it

You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

Come on tell me what I should have done then?

Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income

I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

It is a reasonable whinge.

It is means tested...

You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote

There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.

So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!

So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.

As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however

God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

What the hell was I supposed to do?

And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.

So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.

They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made

I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?

So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance

As usual showing your ignorance.

Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.

Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.

Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.

PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.

It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.

It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do

I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.

PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).

By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).

The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.

It is not a tax return in anyway.

Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.

Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.

Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.

Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.

So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!

Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd

a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.

b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.

No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income

This whole conversation started with WFA payments to the rich.

WFA is *checks notes* a benefit.

Therefore, there are rich people on benefits.

Did they have a break for sleep or have HYUFD and khj been battling all night?

We might need cricket rules on here. Stop for bad light - or more when there's more heat than light

HYUFD is surely the Chris Tavare of argument ?

I'm pretty sure he's played on several times though. It's just that no one's paying attention to raise the finger.

FPT

Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA

I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have

Answer the questions above then:

a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.

Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it

You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

Come on tell me what I should have done then?

Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income

I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

It is a reasonable whinge.

It is means tested...

You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote

There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.

So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!

So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.

As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however

God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

What the hell was I supposed to do?

And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.

So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.

They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made

I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?

So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance

As usual showing your ignorance.

Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.

Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.

Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.

PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.

It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.

It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do

I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.

PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).

By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).

The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.

It is not a tax return in anyway.

Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.

Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.

Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.

Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.

So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!

Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd

a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.

b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.

No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income

This whole conversation started with WFA payments to the rich.

WFA is *checks notes* a benefit.

Therefore, there are rich people on benefits.

Did they have a break for sleep or have HYUFD and khj been battling all night?

We might need cricket rules on here. Stop for bad light - or more when there's more heat than light

HYUFD is surely the Chris Tavare of argument ?

Lib Dem’s

Going bankrupt here !!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqxgpdp7do

Farage is absolutely right to call for this to be reformed. The govts plan is woefully inadequate and this is yet another shit sandwich bequeathed by the useless prior Tory regime.

SEND is Starmer's next bear trap. Individual provision is unaffordable, but as Nick Ferrari demonstrated yesterday taking away special needs provision from needy little children is the Welfare Bill on steroids all over again.

The last Government were splendid at spending money they didn't have to scupper the next Government. Genius.

And people said Rishi was rubbish at politics.

Cheap political points scoring aside, every Council, irrespective of the party leading the administration, where it has a statutory provide to provide SEN services, is struggling.

The rise in SEN referrals since Covid has been astronomical and exponential - there simply aren't the qualified SEN teachers to carry out the assessments, the accommodation deemed to be required isn't available and building it costs a lot of money and third, the home to school transport costs for special needs children is equally ruinous.

The psychological impact of the lockdowns and the disruptions to normal social, educational and cultural life wrought by the pandemic have affected significant numbers of both children and adults as the numbers seeking SEN referrals and the numbers economically active down to mental health issues demonstrate.

Unfortunately, attitudes to those with mental health issues, whether children or adult, among some in the wider community remain in the dim and distant past.

My daughter should be in an interesting cohort. Children born September 2021 to August 2022; the first entirely after Covid. Will the quantity of SEN drop when she gets to school (She has no issues so far as we're aware), or is there a ratchet effect in place now ?

My education psychologist granddaughter considers that there are many children diagnosed as having mental health problems who actually don't have.

Not sure, of course, whether she's simply trying to reduce her workload.

I think both your points are true. I think lockdown caused a lot of SEN, but also - re OKC's granddaughter - it's certainly the case that we diagnose a lot of SEN which a generation ago would have just been part of the normal spectrum of childhood behaviour.

Other reasons for the increase in SEN include:
Increased age of mothers - I have a hazy understanding that (though am happy to be corrected) that frequency of SEN is correlated to mothers' age at birth
Improved ability to keep very premature babies alive - a generation ago, babies born at, say, 27 weeks would have almost certainly died - now we are able to keep them alive but in many cases they have quite severe SEN.

I've related before the experience I have with high flying pharmacy students - a huge proportion of them have some kind of DAP (disability action plan) and my suspicion that many are gaming the system to get extra time in exams. I suspect something similar here. Parents will be looking for advantages for their offspring. They will also probably prefer an official sounding diagnosis to the old approach of 'your child's just not that bright' or 'your child is a troublemaker'. We live in more enlightened times but while we are better at recognising issues we seem very open to abuse by cynical people.

As a retired pharmacist, and indeed a Fellow of the Pharmaceutical Society I'm concerned by this. Pharmacists often need to be 'nit pickers', getting everything right first time and picking up on the exceptional, which may or may not be an error, but they shouldn't need extra time to do it.

It is unlikely the LDs will win more votes than the Tories but yes they could certainly win more seats, especially if it becomes a Labour v Reform battle in most marginal seats and the LDs hold their current seats. Kemi is unlikely to be allowed to stay Tory leader if that looks likely though.

If a hung parliament next time which of the Tories or LDs win most seats could also be key to whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM. Assuming the Tories would back Reform and the LDs would back Labour

Morning! What can your party do to remedy this situation? From the natural party of government to the prospect of being 4th within a single election cycle.

Permit me two observations:
1) The damage done to the party post Covid is cataclysmic and so many of you appear to be in utter denial. Yes this Labour government is getting worse by the day, but few people think "so lets go back to the Tories". They think you were even worse than this lot.
2) The political zeitgeist has shifted considerably. Badenoch suffers from (1) very badly - to haughty to accept that she and her colleagues did a bad job - and is banging out about woke and bathrooms which aren't the issues people care about any more.

What is the way back for you? It isn't "Labour collapsing and people making us the government again. They won't - not without a serious change of mindset firstly from your party and then from the electorate.

It's not so much post-Covid. They could have survived that, embarrassing as Partygate and Cumstain and the procurement fiascos all were.

It's the Truss debacle that killed them.

Which only occurred as Boris was removed, if he hadn’t been Farage would never have returned

Point of order

Johnson removed himself by his idiotic behaviour