As columnist on the Telegraph Boris was earning £275,000 a year, only about £100k more than he gets as PM now and without the rent and mortgage free town house in Westminster and mansion in Buckinghamshire (with chef and staff) and government provided chauffeur driven car and police escort and flights he gets as perks of his job as PM.
If he stayed PM through the next general election and won it and headed to 10 years as PM he would be in the Blair and Thatcher league and could command millions on the lecture circuit as they did.
So Boris will want to stay and Tory MPs won't remove him unless Labour gets a clear poll lead and an alternative Tory leader polls better against Starmer than he does
I'd be surprised if Sunak doesn't already poll better than Johnson does given the last couple of weeks.
Is Sunak any better ? He appears, for instance, to be largely to blame for the rail debacle (though I note the Treasury is briefing that's it's all a problem of No10 'presentation').
It’s definitely not all plain sailing this week for Sunak:
FPT:
The Chancellor is getting it this week, for having let the Free Ports initiative get watered down by the Treasury civil servants, despite having authored a report on their advantage five years ago.
“The idea of reviving freeports had come from then-international trade secretary Liz Truss.. (snip) “Recently there have been reports that ministers and businesses have said that Treasury is killing freeports with a lack of ambition on tax cuts and planning relaxation. This comes as the first freeport started operating in Teesside on Friday.”
I doubt more than a handful of people care about, that, though. Whereas the betrayal of the north over rail is an issue of great political salience.
Possibly so, although I will continue to stand by my comments last week that most people in the north of England are much more interested in road improvements than rail, and that those pushing rail are more London-centric in their thinking....
I think that's nonsense (and I live in West Yorkshire). A new line, from a point of view of capacity as well as speed, linking the towns and cities of the M62 corridor (and good luck getting government to build another motorway) would be transformative.
There are no votes to be had in solving the social care problem. That much is clear.
This is why you need to elect me as the country's first directly elected dictator on a 25 year term.
It's one of the weaknesses in our system that parliament could change the voting terms to 25 years on a simple majority. It's one area where the (much higher) US bar is better than our system.
Could the monarch say "no" and refuse to sign the bill?
If they wanted to become an ex monarch.
That is rubbish.
If the monarch refused to sign a bill extending MPs terms to 25 years without re election then they would be entitled to do so precisely to protect democracy and the government being held regularly accountable and required to seek re election.
That is one of the key reasons why constitutional monarchy helps protect against a future dictatorship
As columnist on the Telegraph Boris was earning £275,000 a year, only about £100k more than he gets as PM now and without the rent and mortgage free town house in Westminster and mansion in Buckinghamshire (with chef and staff) and government provided chauffeur driven car and police escort and flights he gets as perks of his job as PM.
If he stayed PM through the next general election and won it and headed to 10 years as PM he would be in the Blair and Thatcher league and could command millions on the lecture circuit as they did.
So Boris will want to stay and Tory MPs won't remove him unless Labour gets a clear poll lead and an alternative Tory leader polls better against Starmer than he does
I'd be surprised if Sunak doesn't already poll better than Johnson does given the last couple of weeks.
Is Sunak any better ? He appears, for instance, to be largely to blame for the rail debacle (though I note the Treasury is briefing that's it's all a problem of No10 'presentation').
It’s definitely not all plain sailing this week for Sunak:
FPT:
The Chancellor is getting it this week, for having let the Free Ports initiative get watered down by the Treasury civil servants, despite having authored a report on their advantage five years ago.
“The idea of reviving freeports had come from then-international trade secretary Liz Truss. She invited me and others to join a working group to push it forward. When I got there, I was pleased to see Rishi Sunak, who had recently published a think tank report extolling the virtues of freeports. I was less pleased to see ranks of Treasury civil servants, almost outnumbering those of us round the table. “They insisted on being here,” a trade official told me. This was now a joint Trade-Treasury project.
“I had the sinking feeling that — despite the support of the Prime Minister, the Trade Secretary, and the man who would become Chancellor — the freeports revival was already in its last throes. And so it proved. Oxbridge professors on the panel said freeports would only relocate jobs from one part of the UK to another. (Oxbridge economics says very little about entrepreneurship. It regards firms as a "given" rather than asking how and why new ones are generated. Hence the idea that jobs can only be moved around, not created.)
“The Treasury officials, meanwhile, complained of the complexity of changing the customs and VAT rules, hinting of fraud and tax avoidance. The number of freeports would be limited to 10 and politics, not economics, would decide where they were located. And they would have to focus on "high-tech" jobs (the politicians’ mantra) rather than what the market might produce. None of the people I suggested, who actually created or ran successful freeports around the world, were ever contacted. After one meeting, the freeports "working group" quietly expired.
“Recently there have been reports that ministers and businesses have said that Treasury is killing freeports with a lack of ambition on tax cuts and planning relaxation. This comes as the first freeport started operating in Teesside on Friday.”
Were circumstances ever bizarre enough that I was put in charge, I would shut down the Treasury at once. And I would create a new department from the ground up with entirely new people.
Nope, I would relocate all of it to somewhere well outside London (Darlington) and get them to understand how the rest of the UK works.
But the reality is that the treasury needs separate guidance in what they are planning to do, which for levelling up means - you need to fix things so that GDP per capita is increasing higher up North than in London. And if you don't no further promotions.
A very shortsighted proposal. My old flatmate was an economist at the Treasury. Brown restructured it to a flatter pyramid, thereby leaving few opportunities for promotion. Make it less desirable still and the remaining Treasury staff will decamp to the financial services industry.
See black people protesting at murder by white cop in another state. Nope, that didn't happen. Jacob Blake is still alive. Antifa were doing most of the protesting.
Take a huge fuck-off rifle you can't legally possess and drive to the protest
Nope, that didn't happen. Drove there. Picked up the gun. Legally allowed to handle it. Hence, no gun charge.
Go out patrolling someone else's town in someone else's state pretending to be part of the local vigilante militia defending the town against uppity black communists or whatever
His family's town - Dad and other relatives live there. Footage shows him cleaning graffiti earlier in the day and putting out fires on that third night of rioting. The mob that chased him was almost all white (except for the drop kick guy). Riminskis - who fired the first shot - white. Rosenbaum - who chased him through the car lot - white. Huber - who wrestled with him on the floor - white. Grosskreutz - who was only shot when he raised his pistol at Rittenhouse - white.
There's a good reason Rittenhouse was exonerated.
It's like you're willingly ignoring details that can be independently corroborated. Like, for a start and your very first comment, Jacob Blake still being alive.
While you are completely right, Rochdale's version of events is exactly what the US media, and the BBC, have been telling us ever since it happened. I, too, watched the trial, and there was very little that was presented at trial that couldn't have been known beforehand.
Quite simply, the mainstream US media have lied about this case from Day 1, and as far more people will have read about/watched the Rittenhouse case in the US media than will have watched the trial, their lies will have been effective, and now cause many to believe that the justice system is rigged - when in this instance it wasn't.
This is far from a one off event. The Covington school scenario is another of many examples. I would no more believe the NY Times or the Washington Post than I would Fox News or Newsmax - and anyone using these as their source of record in relation to US politics is sure to get an incredibly skewed, and mostly false, perspective.
A very wealthy, liberal friend, half American and highly educated - with a house in LA - invited me to his private suite to watch Chelsea Juventus at the Bridge last night
We got talking about Rittenhouse. A case he had FOLLOWED. He was convinced Rittenhouse killed at least one black man. It took some persuasion to make him grasp the truth
He gets all his American news from the NYT, CNN, which happily lie and lie again. As you say
Btw it was an excellent match. I might adopt Chelsea as my team. They were superb
You can't just adopt a team.
I’ll do what I like. What the fuck is it with this Lefty predisposition to tell people what they can and can’t do? It even extends to football. Go jump in the Serpentine
Just narked because there was no Pfizer and you had to have the other one. Don't worry you still have decent enough protection. It's only a few percent difference. Glad I got the Pfizer though.
Telling that Boris Johnson cannot answer that yes or no question.
What question was it? As in fairness many yes or no questions that are put cannot properly be answered in a non misleading way if you are told to say just yes or no.
Which is why people demand it of course.
That said I can easily believe he fails to answer do even when appropriate and easy.
Will people need to sell their homes to fund social care.
Yes or no.
Yes, that one is pretty straightforward.
Yes, it's no. This has been the case since 2015. Starmer speaks with forked tongue.
I don't disagree with the verdict on racist killer Rittenhouse - with the laws they have - and he is only 18. I hope he manages to turn things around in his life. His chances of this aren't helped by the MAGA right treating him like a hero celeb.
He is claiming to support BLM, at the moment.
He’s also claiming that he wants to get back to a normal life and away from all the attention. At least he’s escaped incipient incelhood, the blonde MAGA Mädchen will be queueing up.
See black people protesting at murder by white cop in another state. Nope, that didn't happen. Jacob Blake is still alive. Antifa were doing most of the protesting.
Take a huge fuck-off rifle you can't legally possess and drive to the protest
Nope, that didn't happen. Drove there. Picked up the gun. Legally allowed to handle it. Hence, no gun charge.
Go out patrolling someone else's town in someone else's state pretending to be part of the local vigilante militia defending the town against uppity black communists or whatever
His family's town - Dad and other relatives live there. Footage shows him cleaning graffiti earlier in the day and putting out fires on that third night of rioting. The mob that chased him was almost all white (except for the drop kick guy). Riminskis - who fired the first shot - white. Rosenbaum - who chased him through the car lot - white. Huber - who wrestled with him on the floor - white. Grosskreutz - who was only shot when he raised his pistol at Rittenhouse - white.
There's a good reason Rittenhouse was exonerated.
It's like you're willingly ignoring details that can be independently corroborated. Like, for a start and your very first comment, Jacob Blake still being alive.
While you are completely right, Rochdale's version of events is exactly what the US media, and the BBC, have been telling us ever since it happened. I, too, watched the trial, and there was very little that was presented at trial that couldn't have been known beforehand.
Quite simply, the mainstream US media have lied about this case from Day 1, and as far more people will have read about/watched the Rittenhouse case in the US media than will have watched the trial, their lies will have been effective, and now cause many to believe that the justice system is rigged - when in this instance it wasn't.
This is far from a one off event. The Covington school scenario is another of many examples. I would no more believe the NY Times or the Washington Post than I would Fox News or Newsmax - and anyone using these as their source of record in relation to US politics is sure to get an incredibly skewed, and mostly false, perspective.
A very wealthy, liberal friend, half American and highly educated - with a house in LA - invited me to his private suite to watch Chelsea Juventus at the Bridge last night
We got talking about Rittenhouse. A case he had FOLLOWED. He was convinced Rittenhouse killed at least one black man. It took some persuasion to make him grasp the truth
He gets all his American news from the NYT, CNN, which happily lie and lie again. As you say
Btw it was an excellent match. I might adopt Chelsea as my team. They were superb
I would have pegged you as a Chelsea supporter already, TBH.
With Moderna (the UK has apparently run out of Pfizer)
I am now SUPER RESILIENT LEON
That definitely isn't true.
Isn't Moderna the booster jab if you've previously had Pfizer - and Pfizer is what you get if you previously had AZ?
Nah, my mum had 3x Pfizer. It's just whatever is available. Supposedly AZ/AZ/Moderna is the winner, all combinations have ca. 94% against infection though.
See black people protesting at murder by white cop in another state. Nope, that didn't happen. Jacob Blake is still alive. Antifa were doing most of the protesting.
Take a huge fuck-off rifle you can't legally possess and drive to the protest
Nope, that didn't happen. Drove there. Picked up the gun. Legally allowed to handle it. Hence, no gun charge.
Go out patrolling someone else's town in someone else's state pretending to be part of the local vigilante militia defending the town against uppity black communists or whatever
His family's town - Dad and other relatives live there. Footage shows him cleaning graffiti earlier in the day and putting out fires on that third night of rioting. The mob that chased him was almost all white (except for the drop kick guy). Riminskis - who fired the first shot - white. Rosenbaum - who chased him through the car lot - white. Huber - who wrestled with him on the floor - white. Grosskreutz - who was only shot when he raised his pistol at Rittenhouse - white.
There's a good reason Rittenhouse was exonerated.
It's like you're willingly ignoring details that can be independently corroborated. Like, for a start and your very first comment, Jacob Blake still being alive.
While you are completely right, Rochdale's version of events is exactly what the US media, and the BBC, have been telling us ever since it happened. I, too, watched the trial, and there was very little that was presented at trial that couldn't have been known beforehand.
Quite simply, the mainstream US media have lied about this case from Day 1, and as far more people will have read about/watched the Rittenhouse case in the US media than will have watched the trial, their lies will have been effective, and now cause many to believe that the justice system is rigged - when in this instance it wasn't.
This is far from a one off event. The Covington school scenario is another of many examples. I would no more believe the NY Times or the Washington Post than I would Fox News or Newsmax - and anyone using these as their source of record in relation to US politics is sure to get an incredibly skewed, and mostly false, perspective.
A very wealthy, liberal friend, half American and highly educated - with a house in LA - invited me to his private suite to watch Chelsea Juventus at the Bridge last night
We got talking about Rittenhouse. A case he had FOLLOWED. He was convinced Rittenhouse killed at least one black man. It took some persuasion to make him grasp the truth
He gets all his American news from the NYT, CNN, which happily lie and lie again. As you say
Btw it was an excellent match. I might adopt Chelsea as my team. They were superb
You can't just adopt a team.
I’ll do what I like. What the fuck is it with this Lefty predisposition to tell people what they can and can’t do? It even extends to football. Go jump in the Serpentine
Just narked because there was no Pfizer and you had to have the other one. Don't worry you still have decent enough protection. It's only a few percent difference. Glad I got the Pfizer though.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
Much of the criticism around regarding the care proposals, appear to come from a lack of understanding as to the status quo. At best, people are comparing Option A and Option B, without understanding how these options differ from the current system.
See black people protesting at murder by white cop in another state. Nope, that didn't happen. Jacob Blake is still alive. Antifa were doing most of the protesting.
Take a huge fuck-off rifle you can't legally possess and drive to the protest
Nope, that didn't happen. Drove there. Picked up the gun. Legally allowed to handle it. Hence, no gun charge.
Go out patrolling someone else's town in someone else's state pretending to be part of the local vigilante militia defending the town against uppity black communists or whatever
His family's town - Dad and other relatives live there. Footage shows him cleaning graffiti earlier in the day and putting out fires on that third night of rioting. The mob that chased him was almost all white (except for the drop kick guy). Riminskis - who fired the first shot - white. Rosenbaum - who chased him through the car lot - white. Huber - who wrestled with him on the floor - white. Grosskreutz - who was only shot when he raised his pistol at Rittenhouse - white.
There's a good reason Rittenhouse was exonerated.
It's like you're willingly ignoring details that can be independently corroborated. Like, for a start and your very first comment, Jacob Blake still being alive.
While you are completely right, Rochdale's version of events is exactly what the US media, and the BBC, have been telling us ever since it happened. I, too, watched the trial, and there was very little that was presented at trial that couldn't have been known beforehand.
Quite simply, the mainstream US media have lied about this case from Day 1, and as far more people will have read about/watched the Rittenhouse case in the US media than will have watched the trial, their lies will have been effective, and now cause many to believe that the justice system is rigged - when in this instance it wasn't.
This is far from a one off event. The Covington school scenario is another of many examples. I would no more believe the NY Times or the Washington Post than I would Fox News or Newsmax - and anyone using these as their source of record in relation to US politics is sure to get an incredibly skewed, and mostly false, perspective.
A very wealthy, liberal friend, half American and highly educated - with a house in LA - invited me to his private suite to watch Chelsea Juventus at the Bridge last night
We got talking about Rittenhouse. A case he had FOLLOWED. He was convinced Rittenhouse killed at least one black man. It took some persuasion to make him grasp the truth
He gets all his American news from the NYT, CNN, which happily lie and lie again. As you say
Btw it was an excellent match. I might adopt Chelsea as my team. They were superb
I would have pegged you as a Chelsea supporter already, TBH.
Please, don't use the term 'pegged', I'm having unfortunate images.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
If he stayed PM through the next general election and won it and headed to 10 years as PM he would be in the Blair and Thatcher league and could command millions on the lecture circuit as they did.
"Sorry sorry. Forgive me, forgive me"
I'd hope US students would protest their university paying their huge loans out to Boris on a jolly.
I would not be surprised if Bozo has used those lines on a previous occasion. Probably in a domestic setting.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
As columnist on the Telegraph Boris was earning £275,000 a year, only about £100k more than he gets as PM now and without the rent and mortgage free town house in Westminster and mansion in Buckinghamshire (with chef and staff) and government provided chauffeur driven car and police escort and flights he gets as perks of his job as PM.
If he stayed PM through the next general election and won it and headed to 10 years as PM he would be in the Blair and Thatcher league and could command millions on the lecture circuit as they did.
So Boris will want to stay and Tory MPs won't remove him unless Labour gets a clear poll lead and an alternative Tory leader polls better against Starmer than he does
Boris was, as well as Telegraph writer, motoring correspondent for GQ. I'm surprised he does not make more of this.
But Boris will not earn millions on the business lecture circuit because he treats audiences with contempt as we have seen this week, and a few weeks ago at the Conservative Party conference.
No, the future for Boris lies on the American academic circuit, starting with seven figures as a moosehead professor at the University of Wazoo, and free to write and make hay on the after-dinner circuit.
He will get £10m for his memoirs. A fortune to see him to his grave
He is the first British Prime Minister since Thatcher with a story that the whole world wants to hear, especially the USA. Arguably, he is the most bankable PM since Churchill
This is not because he is a great PM, but simply events, dear boy. He was the winner of the Brexit referendum - one of the great geopolitical events of the century so far, and he has been PM during a once-a-century pandemic, when Britain was also at the centre of events producing vaccines AND variants
And he is a naturally good writer, and he he has had a colourful life apart from all this. Publishers will throw money at him; there will be a glossy Netflix series about him
I don't think Johnson is a particularly readable writer. He gets lost in rather a lot of florid nonsense. Compare and contrast with the travelogues of @SeanT formerly of this parish who if you care to look at his travel writing work is far more fluent than Johnson, although some of his more subjective writing less so.
Johnson will make a fortune as an after dinner speaker. I wouldn't pay money to see him. He is not a raconteur of the quality of Ustinov for example, but many will
I agree. He’s a good writer (as I said) not a great one like some others you mentioned
But being a good professional writer sets him well above 99% of prime ministers. And his story is amazing simply because of the epochal events he has seen/steered
Well, there's been a few, who weren't too bad. Churchill, Disraeli. Both of whom, incidentally, have more things in common with Boris than any other PM's I can think of. He's like a cross between the two.
With Moderna (the UK has apparently run out of Pfizer)
I am now SUPER RESILIENT LEON
I had Pfiser booster. So I'm even more resilient than you.
The pharmacist who gave me the jab claimed that Moderna is actually better than Pfizer against Delta, and also produces more T cells (I think - I was wincing a little as the needle stung a lot more than the first two AZ jabs)
Anyway well done HMG. Efficient and easy. All good
There are no votes to be had in solving the social care problem. That much is clear.
This is why you need to elect me as the country's first directly elected dictator on a 25 year term.
It's one of the weaknesses in our system that parliament could change the voting terms to 25 years on a simple majority. It's one area where the (much higher) US bar is better than our system.
Could the monarch say "no" and refuse to sign the bill?
If they wanted to become an ex monarch.
That is rubbish.
If the monarch refused to sign a bill extending MPs terms to 25 years without re election then they would be entitled to do so precisely to protect democracy and the government being held regularly accountable and required to seek re election.
That is one of the key reasons why constitutional monarchy helps protect against a future dictatorship
What is rubbish is your pretend inability to read and substituting a different point in place of the one made.
No one is saying they couldn't do it. I've not seen anyone say they should not either, since clearly it would be a monstrous idea.
Where people differ is predicting what might follow such an action, if parliament felt it had support to even attempt such a move.
I am simply not optimistic that a hypothetical party that would propose and pass such a thing would then play nice because of our constitutional norms if stopped by the monarch. They wouldn't get that far if they cared about norms.
With Moderna (the UK has apparently run out of Pfizer)
I am now SUPER RESILIENT LEON
That definitely isn't true.
Isn't Moderna the booster jab if you've previously had Pfizer - and Pfizer is what you get if you previously had AZ?
Nah, my mum had 3x Pfizer. It's just whatever is available. Supposedly AZ/AZ/Moderna is the winner, all combinations have ca. 94% against infection though.
Friend in Thailand just had AZ x 3. I'm hoping for AZ x 2 + Moderna.
And here is the "Minard" graphic in that thread....
I also like this graphic which shows very clearly the impact of boosters.
It also shows why we will start to see cases falling as it runs out of youngsters to infect.
It is almost as if vaccines work!
One reason why I think lockdownism and maskism are gateway drugs to antivaxism –restrictions and mask mandates imply that vaccines don't work, and thus undermine the simple GET YOUR JABS message.
They test at a different rate - therefore comparing testing like that does't work. Simply multiplying by populations and testing rates doesn't either. Because testing is self selected (partially)
Playing around with this, the fall post vaccine implementation can be seen with all countries, with UK slightly ahead in time due to faster rollout. But thereafter the respective positions are muddy. Don't seem to correlate to extent of local restrictions. Perhaps more to do with Delta ingress?
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Opening up in the summer was even at the time clearly a good call. I thought people would panic if we got to 100 deaths a day again but actually that has not happened.
Boris well supported by his mps by the sound of it
Boris held his corner and his mps clearly have come in behind him in these exchanges
These are the people who banged the desks when May lost her majority to Corbyn. You expect owt else??
Boris must have had a good night's sleep as he is much improved to the Boris who spoke at the CBI
I not sure that his loss of his premiership is as near as some hope
Since you have repeatedly called for Boris to go, are you disappointed?
I am a conservative and want a conservative government, as I have not seen anything from labour other than spending 100s of billions on everything without any idea how to pay for it
Boris is Boris and he is not going to change so it is upto his mps to act and if they do I support them
They test at a different rate - therefore comparing testing like that does't work. Simply multiplying by populations and testing rates doesn't either. Because testing is self selected (partially)
Playing around with this, the fall post vaccine implementation can be seen with all countries, with UK slightly ahead in time due to faster rollout. But thereafter the respective positions are muddy. Don't seem to correlate to extent of local restrictions. Perhaps more to do with Delta ingress?
The UK did very well with vaccination on the older groups. In addition the infections of the previous wave created this -
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
See black people protesting at murder by white cop in another state. Nope, that didn't happen. Jacob Blake is still alive. Antifa were doing most of the protesting.
Take a huge fuck-off rifle you can't legally possess and drive to the protest
Nope, that didn't happen. Drove there. Picked up the gun. Legally allowed to handle it. Hence, no gun charge.
Go out patrolling someone else's town in someone else's state pretending to be part of the local vigilante militia defending the town against uppity black communists or whatever
His family's town - Dad and other relatives live there. Footage shows him cleaning graffiti earlier in the day and putting out fires on that third night of rioting. The mob that chased him was almost all white (except for the drop kick guy). Riminskis - who fired the first shot - white. Rosenbaum - who chased him through the car lot - white. Huber - who wrestled with him on the floor - white. Grosskreutz - who was only shot when he raised his pistol at Rittenhouse - white.
There's a good reason Rittenhouse was exonerated.
It's like you're willingly ignoring details that can be independently corroborated. Like, for a start and your very first comment, Jacob Blake still being alive.
While you are completely right, Rochdale's version of events is exactly what the US media, and the BBC, have been telling us ever since it happened. I, too, watched the trial, and there was very little that was presented at trial that couldn't have been known beforehand.
Quite simply, the mainstream US media have lied about this case from Day 1, and as far more people will have read about/watched the Rittenhouse case in the US media than will have watched the trial, their lies will have been effective, and now cause many to believe that the justice system is rigged - when in this instance it wasn't.
This is far from a one off event. The Covington school scenario is another of many examples. I would no more believe the NY Times or the Washington Post than I would Fox News or Newsmax - and anyone using these as their source of record in relation to US politics is sure to get an incredibly skewed, and mostly false, perspective.
Btw it was an excellent match. I might adopt Chelsea as my team. They were superb
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
As columnist on the Telegraph Boris was earning £275,000 a year, only about £100k more than he gets as PM now and without the rent and mortgage free town house in Westminster and mansion in Buckinghamshire (with chef and staff) and government provided chauffeur driven car and police escort and flights he gets as perks of his job as PM.
If he stayed PM through the next general election and won it and headed to 10 years as PM he would be in the Blair and Thatcher league and could command millions on the lecture circuit as they did.
So Boris will want to stay and Tory MPs won't remove him unless Labour gets a clear poll lead and an alternative Tory leader polls better against Starmer than he does
I'd be surprised if Sunak doesn't already poll better than Johnson does given the last couple of weeks.
Is Sunak any better ? He appears, for instance, to be largely to blame for the rail debacle (though I note the Treasury is briefing that's it's all a problem of No10 'presentation').
It’s definitely not all plain sailing this week for Sunak:
FPT:
The Chancellor is getting it this week, for having let the Free Ports initiative get watered down by the Treasury civil servants, despite having authored a report on their advantage five years ago.
“The idea of reviving freeports had come from then-international trade secretary Liz Truss.. (snip) “Recently there have been reports that ministers and businesses have said that Treasury is killing freeports with a lack of ambition on tax cuts and planning relaxation. This comes as the first freeport started operating in Teesside on Friday.”
I doubt more than a handful of people care about, that, though. Whereas the betrayal of the north over rail is an issue of great political salience.
Possibly so, although I will continue to stand by my comments last week that most people in the north of England are much more interested in road improvements than rail, and that those pushing rail are more London-centric in their thinking....
I think that's nonsense (and I live in West Yorkshire). A new line, from a point of view of capacity as well as speed, linking the towns and cities of the M62 corridor (and good luck getting government to build another motorway) would be transformative.
Indeed. Supply creates its own demand. The reason northerners have to use roads is because the railways up there are shite.
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
There are no votes to be had in solving the social care problem. That much is clear.
This is why you need to elect me as the country's first directly elected dictator on a 25 year term.
It's one of the weaknesses in our system that parliament could change the voting terms to 25 years on a simple majority. It's one area where the (much higher) US bar is better than our system.
Could the monarch say "no" and refuse to sign the bill?
If they wanted to become an ex monarch.
That is rubbish.
If the monarch refused to sign a bill extending MPs terms to 25 years without re election then they would be entitled to do so precisely to protect democracy and the government being held regularly accountable and required to seek re election.
That is one of the key reasons why constitutional monarchy helps protect against a future dictatorship
What is rubbish is your pretend inability to read and substituting a different point in place of the one made.
No one is saying they couldn't do it. I've not seen anyone say they should not either, since clearly it would be a monstrous idea.
Where people differ is predicting what might follow such an action, if parliament felt it had support to even attempt such a move.
I am simply not optimistic that a hypothetical party that would propose and pass such a thing would then play nice because of our constitutional norms if stopped by the monarch. They wouldn't get that far if they cared about norms.
They may not play nice but no government would ever have been elected with a manifesto commitment to stay in power for 25 years without ever facing re election.
So the Monarch could and would refuse to sign any bill proposing that and nothing Parliament and the government can do about it.
For while the Monarch cannot abolish Parliament, Parliament cannot abolish the Monarchy either, certainly without being elected on a manifesto commitment to do so beforehand (or after having held a referendum on it first)
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
What is true is the issue is complex and certainly if someone is in care and their partner is at home the home is disregarded for care costs
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
What is true is the issue is complex and certainly if someone is in care and their partner is at home the home is disregarded for care costs
Is that what the new rules say or are you saying that without checking the entire detail?
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
What is true is the issue is complex and certainly if someone is in care and their partner is at home the home is disregarded for care costs
It isn't that complex. And Boris either doesn't know his own policy or lied about it. Either way he needs to come back to the dispatch box and correct the record.
All this "driving across state lines" emphasis does rather ignore how close his hometown, Antioch, and Kenosha are to the Wisconsin - Illinois border. Each place is literally touching the border, and there's about 5 miles between the corners of them.
It was coincidence that the google map image contained the business "5 Star Firearms" in the bottom right corner.
Not sure the distance is particularly relevant. You're either crossing the border or not. The US authorities in Blaine, Washington, never used to let me get away with that argument.
I don't think crossing state lines is particularly relevant to how bad what he did was.
If Antioch were just inside Wisconsin I think it would have been an equally bad idea to drive there to a riot with a gun.
If Antioch were in Wisconsin, but was 150 miles away and he had little connection with the place, I think it would have been worse despite not crossing state lines in this hypothetical.
Do you really think state line crossing makes any difference to the ethical issue?
It seems fairly clear that Rittenhouse made sure that the weapon he carried at the riot was *technically* legal.
Carrying guns at a riot is stupid and leads to predictable results. I would argue that doing so, deliberately, gets you into the reckless endangerment/manslaughter zone. On an ethical basis, that is.
I probably wouldn't go as far, but I think it is generally a bad thing if the police are outsourcing the role of waving guns around to vigilantes.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
Because Labour is a political party in Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland?
Because a referendum on Scottish independence would be internal to the UK and a GFA Irish border poll would not. Should the UK government tell citizens of the Irish Republic how to vote? "No" says the GFA.
With Moderna (the UK has apparently run out of Pfizer)
I am now SUPER RESILIENT LEON
I had Pfiser booster. So I'm even more resilient than you.
The pharmacist who gave me the jab claimed that Moderna is actually better than Pfizer against Delta, and also produces more T cells (I think - I was wincing a little as the needle stung a lot more than the first two AZ jabs)
Anyway well done HMG. Efficient and easy. All good
It is: all the evidence is that the fall off in efficacy for Modena is the best of all the vaccines.
What is not clear is if this is the result of the much higher (c. 3x greater than Pfizer) dose, or because of the longer dosing schedule.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
It does not generally stand candidates in NI though.
Instead Labour's sister party, the SDLP stands, as the Conservative Party's sister party, the UUP and the LDs sister party, the Alliance also stand on their behalf
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Why has Johnson just answered Layla Moran with a jibe about "this wouldn't have happened under Labour"? Layla Moran is a Lib Dem MP.
She may as well be, in Oxford West and Abingdon most Labour supporters vote for her and she is on the left of the LDs and ultra woke
Yep. Anyone who isn't an HYUFDist Tory - including significant numbers of Tory voters - are all Labour in disguise.
No, I would not say that.
There are a few Orange Book LDs who could have been Tories, certainly pre Brexit eg Nick Clegg, David Laws and Jeremy Browne and Danny Alexander.
However Layla Moran would not be anything other than Labour if the LDs did not exist
Although they can work with the right sort of Tories I doubt any could be Tories. I was paired with David Laws to knock up at the Winchester by election and from our chats I couldn't see him doing so.
I am, I guess, an orange booker and I think the same goes for me. I'm not fixed on my alligence but do you think I could be a Tory?
With Moderna (the UK has apparently run out of Pfizer)
I am now SUPER RESILIENT LEON
I had Pfiser booster. So I'm even more resilient than you.
The pharmacist who gave me the jab claimed that Moderna is actually better than Pfizer against Delta, and also produces more T cells (I think - I was wincing a little as the needle stung a lot more than the first two AZ jabs)
Anyway well done HMG. Efficient and easy. All good
It is: all the evidence is that the fall off in efficacy for Modena is the best of all the vaccines.
What is not clear is if this is the result of the much higher (c. 3x greater than Pfizer) dose, or because of the longer dosing schedule.
Hahahaha. In your face you Pfizered fools!!!
I now expect hideous side effects due to my gloating
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
What is true is the issue is complex and certainly if someone is in care and their partner is at home the home is disregarded for care costs
Is that what the new rules say or are you saying that without checking the entire detail?
Why has Johnson just answered Layla Moran with a jibe about "this wouldn't have happened under Labour"? Layla Moran is a Lib Dem MP.
She may as well be, in Oxford West and Abingdon most Labour supporters vote for her and she is on the left of the LDs and ultra woke
Yep. Anyone who isn't an HYUFDist Tory - including significant numbers of Tory voters - are all Labour in disguise.
No, I would not say that.
There are a few Orange Book LDs who could have been Tories, certainly pre Brexit eg Nick Clegg, David Laws and Jeremy Browne and Danny Alexander.
However Layla Moran would not be anything other than Labour if the LDs did not exist
Although they can work with the right sort of Tories I doubt any could be Tories. I was paired with David Laws to knock up at the Winchester by election and from our chats I couldn't see him doing so.
I am, I guess, an orange booker and I think the same goes for me. I'm not fixed on my alligence but do you think I could be a Tory?
I would certainly say David Laws was even right of some MPs who actually were Tories eg Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry.
I certainly would say you could support a coalition with say another Cameron like Tory leader, even if not with the current Boris led Tory party.
Labour leaning LDs like Moran however would oppose any coalition with the Tories, ever. Moran of course was elected in 2017, post Coalition
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
And that is not just my understanding but also experience and some on here attacking Boris do not know the detail themselves
Why has Johnson just answered Layla Moran with a jibe about "this wouldn't have happened under Labour"? Layla Moran is a Lib Dem MP.
She may as well be, in Oxford West and Abingdon most Labour supporters vote for her and she is on the left of the LDs and ultra woke
Yep. Anyone who isn't an HYUFDist Tory - including significant numbers of Tory voters - are all Labour in disguise.
No, I would not say that.
There are a few Orange Book LDs who could have been Tories, certainly pre Brexit eg Nick Clegg, David Laws and Jeremy Browne and Danny Alexander.
However Layla Moran would not be anything other than Labour if the LDs did not exist
Although they can work with the right sort of Tories I doubt any could be Tories. I was paired with David Laws to knock up at the Winchester by election and from our chats I couldn't see him doing so.
I am, I guess, an orange booker and I think the same goes for me. I'm not fixed on my alligence but do you think I could be a Tory?
I preferred the version of HY that went round telling Tories they should be liberals. This new one that tells liberals they should be Tories is no good at all.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
And that is not just my understanding but also experience and some on here attacking Boris do not know the detail themselves
If you’ve been pushed back to the ‘greater idiot’ defence, I suggest you stop digging?
All this "driving across state lines" emphasis does rather ignore how close his hometown, Antioch, and Kenosha are to the Wisconsin - Illinois border. Each place is literally touching the border, and there's about 5 miles between the corners of them.
It was coincidence that the google map image contained the business "5 Star Firearms" in the bottom right corner.
Not sure the distance is particularly relevant. You're either crossing the border or not. The US authorities in Blaine, Washington, never used to let me get away with that argument.
I don't think crossing state lines is particularly relevant to how bad what he did was.
If Antioch were just inside Wisconsin I think it would have been an equally bad idea to drive there to a riot with a gun.
If Antioch were in Wisconsin, but was 150 miles away and he had little connection with the place, I think it would have been worse despite not crossing state lines in this hypothetical.
Do you really think state line crossing makes any difference to the ethical issue?
It seems fairly clear that Rittenhouse made sure that the weapon he carried at the riot was *technically* legal.
Carrying guns at a riot is stupid and leads to predictable results. I would argue that doing so, deliberately, gets you into the reckless endangerment/manslaughter zone. On an ethical basis, that is.
I probably wouldn't go as far, but I think it is generally a bad thing if the police are outsourcing the role of waving guns around to vigilantes.
But isn't that the ultimate problem, in those Kenosha riots the police effectively said "we aren't going to stop this" and that in turn invited vigilantes to take up the mantle of protecting people from the rioters.
There were multiple failures by a lot of people and it did rather feel as though the lefty establishment in the US were trying to scapegoat this one teenager. They whipped up their supporters into a frenzy of violence and then tried to disown the consequences of that violence or even downplay it via their pet media outlets like CNN with their memeworthy "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" reports.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
What is true is the issue is complex and certainly if someone is in care and their partner is at home the home is disregarded for care costs
Is that what the new rules say or are you saying that without checking the entire detail?
No - that is my experience here in Wales
Which means you don't know the post October 2023 rules in England then while claiming that you do....
There are no votes to be had in solving the social care problem. That much is clear.
This is why you need to elect me as the country's first directly elected dictator on a 25 year term.
It's one of the weaknesses in our system that parliament could change the voting terms to 25 years on a simple majority. It's one area where the (much higher) US bar is better than our system.
Could the monarch say "no" and refuse to sign the bill?
If they wanted to become an ex monarch.
That is rubbish.
If the monarch refused to sign a bill extending MPs terms to 25 years without re election then they would be entitled to do so precisely to protect democracy and the government being held regularly accountable and required to seek re election.
That is one of the key reasons why constitutional monarchy helps protect against a future dictatorship
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
And that is not just my understanding but also experience and some on here attacking Boris do not know the detail themselves
If you’ve been pushed back to the ‘greater idiot’ defence, I suggest you stop digging?
You will not be surprised to learn that I will ignore your patronising nonsense and reiterate my experience in this field
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
Agreed – I think their neutral stance is the correct one.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
And that is not just my understanding but also experience and some on here attacking Boris do not know the detail themselves
And worst than that neither does the media
We know what is in the bill. And we are about to witness Tory lords tear it apart on that basis. The PM was clueless / lying. And you are defending it again.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
And that is not just my understanding but also experience and some on here attacking Boris do not know the detail themselves
If you’ve been pushed back to the ‘greater idiot’ defence, I suggest you stop digging?
You will not be surprised to learn that I will ignore your patronising nonsense and reiterate my experience in this field
Do you have any
Again - what experience do you have of the post October 2023 scheme that we are discussing here?
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
Equally it tallies with the long standing relationships between GB and NI political parties.
The republican parties (bar Sinn Fein) have always had a working relationship with Labour loyalist / Unionist parties have tended to side with the Conservative party.
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
What is true is the issue is complex and certainly if someone is in care and their partner is at home the home is disregarded for care costs
Is that what the new rules say or are you saying that without checking the entire detail?
No - that is my experience here in Wales
Which means you don't know the post October 2023 rules in England then while claiming that you do....
It seems @stodge has affirmed my understanding of these rules is the same in England
Comments
We've got more than 12m doses of Fizzer in stock thankfully.
A new line, from a point of view of capacity as well as speed, linking the towns and cities of the M62 corridor (and good luck getting government to build another motorway) would be transformative.
If the monarch refused to sign a bill extending MPs terms to 25 years without re election then they would be entitled to do so precisely to protect democracy and the government being held regularly accountable and required to seek re election.
That is one of the key reasons why constitutional monarchy helps protect against a future dictatorship
See below, point 39:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1015736/Build_Back_Better-_Our_Plan_for_Health_and_Social_Care.pdf
At least he’s escaped incipient incelhood, the blonde MAGA Mädchen will be queueing up.
I not sure that his loss of his premiership is as near as some hope
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1463450316045791241?s=20
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
Open Goal missed AGAIN
No one is saying they couldn't do it. I've not seen anyone say they should not either, since clearly it would be a monstrous idea.
Where people differ is predicting what might follow such an action, if parliament felt it had support to even attempt such a move.
I am simply not optimistic that a hypothetical party that would propose and pass such a thing would then play nice because of our constitutional norms if stopped by the monarch. They wouldn't get that far if they cared about norms.
One reason why I think lockdownism and maskism are gateway drugs to antivaxism –restrictions and mask mandates imply that vaccines don't work, and thus undermine the simple GET YOUR JABS message.
There are a few Orange Book LDs who could have been Tories, certainly pre Brexit eg Nick Clegg, David Laws and Jeremy Browne and Danny Alexander.
However Layla Moran would not be anything other than Labour if the LDs did not exist
Boris is Boris and he is not going to change so it is upto his mps to act and if they do I support them
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
However Labour got just 7% in Oxford West and Abingdon in 2019 while Moran got 53%, virtually all Labour voters in the seat vote for Moran
I'm sure Leon will absolutely hate being a Chelsea fan for that reason alone.
So the Monarch could and would refuse to sign any bill proposing that and nothing Parliament and the government can do about it.
For while the Monarch cannot abolish Parliament, Parliament cannot abolish the Monarchy either, certainly without being elected on a manifesto commitment to do so beforehand (or after having held a referendum on it first)
https://www.eetimes.com/jay-last-fairchild-semi-co-founder-builder-of-1st-commercial-ic-dies-at-92/
their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
Suspect this will be a slow burner… but remember this one…
Sir Keir Starmer vows to do nothing to stop the break up the UK:
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1463485135848943619?s=20
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
What is not clear is if this is the result of the much higher (c. 3x greater than Pfizer) dose, or because of the longer dosing schedule.
Instead Labour's sister party, the SDLP stands, as the Conservative Party's sister party, the UUP and the LDs sister party, the Alliance also stand on their behalf
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/briefing/britain-covid-cases-restrictions.html
I am, I guess, an orange booker and I think the same goes for me. I'm not fixed on my alligence but do you think I could be a Tory?
I now expect hideous side effects due to my gloating
Clarity from ECDC in Sept: mild cases don't matter, severe do. They felt (despite Israel?) no evidence of waning vs severe, so no boosters.
https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/covid-19-public-health-considerations-additional-vaccine-doses
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1463492068781830146?s=20
I certainly would say you could support a coalition with say another Cameron like Tory leader, even if not with the current Boris led Tory party.
Labour leaning LDs like Moran however would oppose any coalition with the Tories, ever. Moran of course was elected in 2017, post Coalition
And worst than that neither does the media
There were multiple failures by a lot of people and it did rather feel as though the lefty establishment in the US were trying to scapegoat this one teenager. They whipped up their supporters into a frenzy of violence and then tried to disown the consequences of that violence or even downplay it via their pet media outlets like CNN with their memeworthy "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" reports.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
Do you have any
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
That simply doesn't follow.
An apocalypse where the UK residents quoted in their articles spoke in American idiom....
The republican parties (bar Sinn Fein) have always had a working relationship with Labour loyalist / Unionist parties have tended to side with the Conservative party.