Best Of

My retired mother-in-law was previously one of Corbyn's greatest supporters and voted Labour in 2017 and 2019.

With Starmer in charge Labour lost her vote, to Reform.

In the event Corbyn creates himself a new party, I have no doubt she will be switching back to Corbyn's new party.

I wonder how common she is amongst the current Reform voters ?

Basically left behind, wanting a massive shake up with very left leaning economic ideas ?

I suspect there may be a rather large cross over between Farage and Corbyn supporters and this new party may have some unexpected results in where they get their voters from.

It's not really that surprising, Corbynites and Fukkers are both essentially yelling 'it's all wrong' while putting up fantasy solutions that sound attractive unless you examine them in depth.

Big day today in the Horizon enquiry when the judge rules on compensation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g267xe3y6o

Hope @Cyclefree is well enough to watch after all her work on it.

It's just a real shame that it's going to take so long to bring some of the actual criminals involved to justice, as that's a separate report.

Actually, justice will take even longer (first trials c.2028... if there are any).

The second report will talk about blame, but probably no more than that.

I am spending the day in the garden sorting stuff for the shed which I have ordered. It is also a beautiful day.

The second report will not hold people criminally responsible because a public inquiry cannot legally do that. It is one of their failings but it will apportion blame.

In the meanwhile here is my Post Office Bingo Card for you to tick off:

- The human impact was awful.
- It was made worse by the conduct of the Post Office and others, including its lawyers and governments over many years.
- It is still continuing.
- Compensation is due, is urgent, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation or the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
- Tribute will be paid to the SPMs.
- The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and pretend that it has no power to do anything about compensation even though the Treasury's dead hands are all over it.
- The Post Office will issue some PR guff about how sorry it is and how much it is doing. Someone will use the appalling phrase "at pace".
- Most journalists will forget to ask why it is that Rodric Williams one of the shiftiest of the PO lawyers who gave evidence and who was heavily involved during the entire period when the problems were known about and covered up is now in charge of compensation at the Post Office.
- The phrase "conflict of interest" will not be mentioned because no-one - other than me - seems to understand or recognise one, even when it is staring you in the face.
- The government continues to think overturning convictions & giving out a few baubles is enough.
- This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. It is Potemkin justice.

Too cynical? Or just realistic? Let's see, shall we.

Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.

A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.

The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.

Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

Another review Reform would reverse

You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.

No I will remain one of the few still PB Tories left even if this site is also painfully short of Reform backers compared to the national electorate

Are we that painfully short?

I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.

Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.

29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.

Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then

At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.

Building more prisons - on its own - is not the answer. It may be that building more prisons is part of the solution, but it needs to be combined with many other things. Like - for a start - fuding the criminal justice system properly.

Um, @Leon, @Malmesbury et al, the "Universe 25"/"Mouse Utopia"/"Calhoun Experiments", whilst not that well known, were known enough for me to discuss it in one of the works Xmas dinners last Christmas, where I fascinated/repelled various luminaries with the story[1], especially when I threw in the phrase "mouse incel" . The alt-right and frankly insane commentator "WhatIfAltHist" - you'd like him - did a YouTube on them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-old-experiment-with-mice-led-to-bleak-predictions-for-humanitys-future-180954423/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTDTVbourzU

[1] I spend a lot of time in trains and taxis, and two of my jobs mean I have a fund of grotesque stories to entertain them. They can be repurposed for a more genteel audience.

I am not sure that I buy it though. Population Fertility rates for humans are dropping everywhere (albeit from a higher base in Africa etc) whether the country is densely or thinly populated.

Zambia has 20 million people in a country twice the size of France for example, yet the fertility rate is dropping there too. (Incidentally there is some belief amongst demographers that many estimates of current populations are overestimated in Africa).

The drop in fertility rates is pretty universal, in both rich and poor countries, the densely and thinly populated, in ones with welfare states and without, in countries with expensive and those with cheap housing, religious and irreligious alike, from different starting points

I think we have to look at other societal changes, and these would have to be worldwide, and particularly taken up by young women. Smartphones and Internet access spring to mind.

Education, opportunities, birth control and reduced child mortality rates have all played a part in reduced fertility rates.

Hardly surprising as most women don't want to be a baby factory and want to do other things with their lives..

Yes but the later you leave it the harder it is to have children, peak fertility for women is in their twenties and early thirties.

Plus as the population ages the working age population will have to pay more and more tax to pay for the healthcare etc to support them

Fewer babies born now means fewer oldies in 60 years' time.

We are headed to the 421 families seen in China. 4 grandparents, 2 parents, 1 child.

For which planet Earth says "Thank fuck..."

The question is whether capitalism works without perpetual growth

Um, yes. People conflate "capitalism" with the rather corrupt lobbyist transnational billionaires at one end and overworked peons at the other end version that we have at the moment. But at heart it's just use of fiat money to mediate transactions, allowing speculative investment to build things and companies, free and perfect markets to buy and sell things, bankruptcy to remove poor performers, courts to oversee contract law, and so on. There are problems with the way we do it and the bits we add on, but basically it works.

Afternoon all

Perhaps in more mellow mode but we all know the Reform "hard right" schtick is going to flounder before too long. The next logical political development would be something along the lines of BSW in Germany - a kind of "Reform of the Left" for those who need the simplicity of labels.

A culturally conservative, nationalist, anti-immigrant, interventionist political movement ostensibly from the socialist side of the street wouldn't be unpopular after the ruin of the "hard right" and those with long memories will recall "the dockers" marching "for Enoch" in the 1960s. Such a movement would be strong in its support for institutions like the NHS and local councils though obviously its financial mismanagement would in time be as poor as Reform's.

Whether it can align with the pro-Muslim groups in parts of East London, Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester and other areas will be interesting as there's an inherent contradiction lurking not far below the surface.

It was interesting to hear Rupert Lowe come up with "restore Christian principles" in his launch blurb for Restore UK. On the back of what are reported to be increasing Church attendances especially among younger people and a move away from secularisation, time will tell if Restore UK can latch on to this sentiment. I'm not 100% sure what Lowe means by "restoring Christian principles" - does he mean Old Testament or New Testament?

I think he's Lowe Church.

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

Give up, @kjh, he’s swallowed a pack of Duracell and those little legs will keep on going regardless of his being right up against the wall.

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

£35k is an absurdly high threshold.

That's considerably higher than the median salary of £29,400

And of course that £35k is already not subject to National Insurance (8% tax), won't be subject to the 9% graduate tax, which kicks in at £25k not £35k. And will typically not be funding any children dependents or housing costs either.

Its absurd that someone on £25k who works for a living is on a 20+8+9 = 37% tax rate without even counting employer's NICs, while someone who earns nearly £10k more than that pays half the tax rate and gets unfunded WFA welfare on top.