Chernobyl’s illuminations were much better in 1986.
I've never actually been to Blackpool, but I hear great things.
Don't be fooled. It sucks.
Blackpool rock gave you toothache?
The town of Blackpool is a bit grim. But the front, and the beach, are splendid. The sunsets over the Irish Sea are amongst the finest in the country. The promenade is surprisingly classy. The illuminations are fun. Enjoy it for what it is, rather than despising it for what it isn't, and it's a lovely place to be for the day. I've been with the family about six times in the past two years. Genuinely enjoyed myself every time.
I have had a couple of weekends there, albeit a couple of decades ago. It is fun, but you have to enter the spirit of the place. All wear viking helmets, eat fish and chips, be a bit lairy with a few beers.
Yes, though that's not the only spirit of the place. The lairy drinkers co-exist quite happily with the families, pensioners, northern soul weekenders and various oddballs.
I was quite a bit younger then!
Northern Soul Weekenders are quite something. There is one in Ryde for the scooter festival every August.
Mrs C has just come in with a cup of coffee.
"What's PB discussing now?"
"The merits of Blackpool holidays. They're bored with Boris Johnson."
Well there is little point in discussing Boris since he appears to do whatever suits him and the party / country / PB can get stuffed it would seem. They certainly do not give a d*mn about NI unless it imperils their precious Brexit money-making chumocracy.
As for the header - does anyone really think that the "Conservatives" will put anyone in charge who is not an Old Boy and who has not been to Oxford?
John Major snuck through the gaps and was a surprise win. They have since changed the system to make sure that sort of thing does not happen again.
So you might as discuss Blackpool and Chernobyl.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it this evening, but there's often not much for the S of S for Scotland/Wales/NI/Bits (depending on the current organization) to do since devolution. This person is often not even the top dog in the relevant nation/province, even in the Tory party thereof, despite what Mr R-M seemed to think a few weeks ago. So that would downgrade Mr Smith some more in the eyes of the party, I would think. (IIRC he did have to do rather more than usual the last time the DUP ejected a toyshop from their pram. But in normal times that's the situation.)
Dunno, Alister Jack seems to have a very busy media career offering a quote for every pro BJ & Union occasion.
I was thinking of real work, not froth, the sort of thing a proper satrap would be doing. Tom Johnston style. But it's a hard life being a provincial procurator since Blair, I suppose. He has to fill in his days somehow, and visiting the nail bar and hairdresser daily presumably don't appeal.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
Lord George Bentinck, writing to his newly appointed successor the Marquis of Granby on the 11th February 1846:
'My advice to you is to appoint your own whippers in, and let them take orders from none but you.'
Granby let Derby appoint his whips instead.
Granby resigned on the 4th March 1846...
And yet Granby has pubs named after him the length and breadth of England.
Thanks. Had a feeling that might be the answer. There must be a few pubs called The Duke of York wondering if Slug and Lettuce (or just Slug) may be more appealing.
I think it is fair to say that a few loons go along way. It is Resistance GB who are claiming this is a staged false flag event.
I note the Guardian has an article about William Coleshill who heads Resistance GB, a conspiracy theory group, who was amongst those personally hassling Starmer. He has also hassled Gove and Jess Philips and for the benefit of @NerysHughes he is an ex_Tory Councillor and apparently even managed to get a selfie canvasing with Boris. The Tory's were sensible enough to throw him out of the party pretty quickly, but it shows that the nutters (unlike @NerysHughes thinks) come from all sides. Once they move onto the loony conspiracy front it really doesn't matter what their origins are, they are all as bad as one another and we shouldn't be pandering to this sort of stuff.
But that's the ooint, nutters can come from all sides but the Tories are reasonably quick at expelling their nutters.
Corbyn and his band of nutters were mollycoddled within Labour for decades and many of his ilk are still there as Labour acts like only the right has issues by defining anyone they dislike (egardless of their economics) as far right. As a result they almost never see the beam in their own eye.
A leftwing Coleshill wouldn't be expelled from Labour anywhere near as quickly.
As with the BoE Governor, at best these people have no real understanding of the situation of those on low and middling incomes. At worse they do, but the plight of the people is nonetheless entirely subordinate to guaranteeing the growth of their asset portfolios.
Regardless, examples of a ruling class of which we would be well rid.
Utterly indefensible.
If the Chancellor didn't want people to ask for a payrise, he shouldn't have put up taxes so people need more money to take home the same amount.
Except he's also put up employers payroll tax too, so employers will struggle as it is let alone to meet any wage demands without putting prices up considerably.
The Chancellor has created the perfect storm in increasing two taxes on wages at the same time.
The broader point here is that the answer to the threat of a wage-price spiral from City and right-wing figures is, inevitably, to ask the workers to bend over and take another rogering. None of them seem to be asking whether businesses, which are by no means all on their uppers, might consider absorbing the hit and accepting lower profits and paying smaller dividends to their shareholders for a change.
The entire system is focussed on driving up asset prices at the expense of reducing an ever larger fraction of wage earners to penury: we're going to need an awful lot of new food banks when those huge energy price hikes start hitting people in the wallet, and most of the new clients are going to be the working poor not people stuck on benefits.
The problem wasn't necessarily about putting up taxation to balance the books; the real issue is that the Chancellor expressly chose to soak wages in preference to capital gains and property.
New: The UK hopes the DUP walkout will prompt a "big enough" EU move on the Protocol this month
Senior government source says failing to resolve it before May election means the DUP likely won't form an Executive. "That’d put us in a very difficult place"
Chernobyl’s illuminations were much better in 1986.
I've never actually been to Blackpool, but I hear great things.
Don't be fooled. It sucks.
Blackpool rock gave you toothache?
The town of Blackpool is a bit grim. But the front, and the beach, are splendid. The sunsets over the Irish Sea are amongst the finest in the country. The promenade is surprisingly classy. The illuminations are fun. Enjoy it for what it is, rather than despising it for what it isn't, and it's a lovely place to be for the day. I've been with the family about six times in the past two years. Genuinely enjoyed myself every time.
I have had a couple of weekends there, albeit a couple of decades ago. It is fun, but you have to enter the spirit of the place. All wear viking helmets, eat fish and chips, be a bit lairy with a few beers.
Yes, though that's not the only spirit of the place. The lairy drinkers co-exist quite happily with the families, pensioners, northern soul weekenders and various oddballs.
I was quite a bit younger then!
Northern Soul Weekenders are quite something. There is one in Ryde for the scooter festival every August.
Mrs C has just come in with a cup of coffee.
"What's PB discussing now?"
"The merits of Blackpool holidays. They're bored with Boris Johnson."
Well there is little point in discussing Boris since he appears to do whatever suits him and the party / country / PB can get stuffed it would seem. They certainly do not give a d*mn about NI unless it imperils their precious Brexit money-making chumocracy.
As for the header - does anyone really think that the "Conservatives" will put anyone in charge who is not an Old Boy and who has not been to Oxford?
John Major snuck through the gaps and was a surprise win. They have since changed the system to make sure that sort of thing does not happen again.
So you might as discuss Blackpool and Chernobyl.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it this evening, but there's often not much for the S of S for Scotland/Wales/NI/Bits (depending on the current organization) to do since devolution. This person is often not even the top dog in the relevant nation/province, even in the Tory party thereof, despite what Mr R-M seemed to think a few weeks ago. So that would downgrade Mr Smith some more in the eyes of the party, I would think. (IIRC he did have to do rather more than usual the last time the DUP ejected a toyshop from their pram. But in normal times that's the situation.)
I did see the post earlier that said the SoS NI was about 4th from the bottom in Cabinet Seniority. It does not surprise me in the slightest.
The DUP's resignation gamble is beginning to look about as wise as their Brexit calculation, especially since the High Court override the orders from Stormont and businesses were advised to ignore it.
And now there is no FM to allow the alteration of rules / guidance.
The special extra person for NI...
NI is part of the UK - it gets governened in that way. The RoI see it differently. They wish to see NI governend differently.
New: The UK hopes the DUP walkout will prompt a "big enough" EU move on the Protocol this month
Senior government source says failing to resolve it before May election means the DUP likely won't form an Executive. "That’d put us in a very difficult place"
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the government is actively hoping for civil breakdown and violence in NI.
They HOPE it will prompt a response? Hope??
What sort of basis for an international policy change is that? Bl**dy amateurs!
Why would it? The DUP endlessly walkout and collapse the Executive for no purpose. They voted for Brexit yet are unable to support it.
Indeed if they had had a proper representative these last years then maybe they would have actually had some input into the Brexit deal.
The EU will not do anything about it. The DUP is Westminster's problem. Going for "hope" is just another admission that we have a govt of rank amateurs.
Somebody on here recently mentioned the "possible" successors and listed Truss, Patel, Raab, Javid and one or two other non-entities. I nearly had a rupture laughing at the thought of any of that lot being able to tie their shoelaces never mind govern.
We are in for a very bad couple of years. By the time we get to 2024 Starmer is going to look like a political colossus.
Two months, three days without a Tory lead and counting...
Half a century without a Tory lead and counting...
Should Scotland become once again Scotland the politics will be very interesting. Small c conservatism must be a big part of the SNP vote, and the SNP will disintegrate.
Bloody well hope so. Can’t wait to see the back of the SNP.
back of the uk, or back of the snp? what's better?
Both good. It is a badge of shame that an organisation like the SNP is needed. The tool should only exist to get the job done, and then be discarded.
And very suitable under a Cyclefree header. Is right place for cash for access under bribery?
I have no wish to be banned - or say anything sub judicial, are we allowed to speculate the money for the flat and then the Dowden meeting looks like a case of straight forward corruption? Are we allowed to post, in my opinion it looks like a case of cash getting access?
Two months, three days without a Tory lead and counting...
Half a century without a Tory lead and counting...
Should Scotland become once again Scotland the politics will be very interesting. Small c conservatism must be a big part of the SNP vote, and the SNP will disintegrate.
Bloody well hope so. Can’t wait to see the back of the SNP.
back of the uk, or back of the snp? what's better?
Both good. It is a badge of shame that an organisation like the SNP is needed. The tool should only exist to get the job done, and then be discarded.
The job being independence? (Which was why I asked the question as I did, and why I'm a little surprised)
As with the BoE Governor, at best these people have no real understanding of the situation of those on low and middling incomes. At worse they do, but the plight of the people is nonetheless entirely subordinate to guaranteeing the growth of their asset portfolios.
Regardless, examples of a ruling class of which we would be well rid.
Utterly indefensible.
If the Chancellor didn't want people to ask for a payrise, he shouldn't have put up taxes so people need more money to take home the same amount.
Except he's also put up employers payroll tax too, so employers will struggle as it is let alone to meet any wage demands without putting prices up considerably.
The Chancellor has created the perfect storm in increasing two taxes on wages at the same time.
The broader point here is that the answer to the threat of a wage-price spiral from City and right-wing figures is, inevitably, to ask the workers to bend over and take another rogering. None of them seem to be asking whether businesses, which are by no means all on their uppers, might consider absorbing the hit and accepting lower profits and paying smaller dividends to their shareholders for a change.
The entire system is focussed on driving up asset prices at the expense of reducing an ever larger fraction of wage earners to penury: we're going to need an awful lot of new food banks when those huge energy price hikes start hitting people in the wallet, and most of the new clients are going to be the working poor not people stuck on benefits.
The problem wasn't necessarily about putting up taxation to balance the books; the real issue is that the Chancellor expressly chose to soak wages in preference to capital gains and property.
I'm still astonished that the dividend income tax rate was also upped by 1.25% on the basis that it was the fairest way of catching "workers who pay themselves via dividends to avoid NI". Even on its own terms it's illiterate: if that's the policy aim it should have been a 2.5% increase to match the combined increase in employer and employee NI. But the worst bit was the subtext: we're really sorry that this will also hit those who receive investment income, but it's the only way we can think of to clobber those pesky workers. The attitude is that tax rates on unearned income are sacrosanct, and only to be increased in the context of trying to tax labour.
Everything about the policy suggests that specialists were nowhere near it and it was just cooked up by a couple of non-expert politicians - which I suppose correlates with Johnson's determination to announce it himself outside the normal Budget cycle.
New: The UK hopes the DUP walkout will prompt a "big enough" EU move on the Protocol this month
Senior government source says failing to resolve it before May election means the DUP likely won't form an Executive. "That’d put us in a very difficult place"
New: The UK hopes the DUP walkout will prompt a "big enough" EU move on the Protocol this month
Senior government source says failing to resolve it before May election means the DUP likely won't form an Executive. "That’d put us in a very difficult place"
I was once interviewed by them as, according to them, an essential witness in a LIBOR trial. This was bollocks on stilts. The interview was amateurishly bad. I was told to expect to be called as a witness the day I was due to go the Hampton Court flower show. I was furious. At the last minute prosecution counsel finally read the statement and told the SFO not to be so bloody silly and I was stood down.
I just don't know why they are so bad. But it really hampers our ability to deal with financial crime effectively enough - and has done for years.
No money for Wales from UK Government’s energy cost rebate for England, First Minister says
The First Minister has said that Wales has been told it will receive no new money as a result of the UK Government’s plan for an energy costs rebate in England.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak last week announced the rebate for residents in band A-D properties in England, after the energy price cap was hiked.
He said at the time that devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would receive around £565 million of Barnett funding as a result of the Council Tax Energy Rebate in England.
But Mark Drakeford today said that this was not the case.
As with the BoE Governor, at best these people have no real understanding of the situation of those on low and middling incomes. At worse they do, but the plight of the people is nonetheless entirely subordinate to guaranteeing the growth of their asset portfolios.
Regardless, examples of a ruling class of which we would be well rid.
Utterly indefensible.
If the Chancellor didn't want people to ask for a payrise, he shouldn't have put up taxes so people need more money to take home the same amount.
Except he's also put up employers payroll tax too, so employers will struggle as it is let alone to meet any wage demands without putting prices up considerably.
The Chancellor has created the perfect storm in increasing two taxes on wages at the same time.
The broader point here is that the answer to the threat of a wage-price spiral from City and right-wing figures is, inevitably, to ask the workers to bend over and take another rogering. None of them seem to be asking whether businesses, which are by no means all on their uppers, might consider absorbing the hit and accepting lower profits and paying smaller dividends to their shareholders for a change.
The entire system is focussed on driving up asset prices at the expense of reducing an ever larger fraction of wage earners to penury: we're going to need an awful lot of new food banks when those huge energy price hikes start hitting people in the wallet, and most of the new clients are going to be the working poor not people stuck on benefits.
The problem wasn't necessarily about putting up taxation to balance the books; the real issue is that the Chancellor expressly chose to soak wages in preference to capital gains and property.
And yet he's seen as the answer to the Tories' prayers.....
I was once interviewed by them as, according to them, an essential witness in a LIBOR trial. This was bollocks on stilts. The interview was amateurishly bad. I was told to expect to be called as a witness the day I was due to go the Hampton Court flower show. I was furious. At the last minute prosecution counsel finally read the statement and told the SFO not to be so bloody silly and I was stood down.
I just don't know why they are so bad. But it really hampers our ability to deal with financial crime effectively enough - and has done for years.
"I just don't know why they are so bad."
I can't imagine a reason either, it's almost like there was money involved.
Two months, three days without a Tory lead and counting...
Half a century without a Tory lead and counting...
Should Scotland become once again Scotland the politics will be very interesting. Small c conservatism must be a big part of the SNP vote, and the SNP will disintegrate.
Bloody well hope so. Can’t wait to see the back of the SNP.
back of the uk, or back of the snp? what's better?
Both good. It is a badge of shame that an organisation like the SNP is needed. The tool should only exist to get the job done, and then be discarded.
The job being independence? (Which was why I asked the question as I did, and why I'm a little surprised)
Of course. Normal countries don’t need independence movements. Scotland needs to become a normal country.
I don’t really understand why you would be surprised.
New: The UK hopes the DUP walkout will prompt a "big enough" EU move on the Protocol this month
Senior government source says failing to resolve it before May election means the DUP likely won't form an Executive. "That’d put us in a very difficult place"
No money for Wales from UK Government’s energy cost rebate for England, First Minister says
The First Minister has said that Wales has been told it will receive no new money as a result of the UK Government’s plan for an energy costs rebate in England.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak last week announced the rebate for residents in band A-D properties in England, after the energy price cap was hiked.
He said at the time that devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would receive around £565 million of Barnett funding as a result of the Council Tax Energy Rebate in England.
But Mark Drakeford today said that this was not the case.
'Sunak also repeated this claim in Parliament more than once.
"I am happy to confirm that the Barnett consequentials for Scotland will be around £290 million," he told MPs.
"Because the council tax system is England-only, total Barnett consequentials of about £565 million will be provided to the devolved administrations in the usual way," Sunak also claimed.
The Chancellor (above) also said he could "confirm ... £175 million or so in Barnett consequentials" for Wales, and later scolded a Welsh Labour MP for "not welcoming" the cash.
[...]
A Welsh Government spokesperson suggested any lack of new funding could be because the council tax rebate announced by the Tories was not truly new money. If no further cash has actually been allocated to England, no consequentials will flow to the Senedd or Holyrood.
Sharing Drakeford’s tweet, SNP cabinet secretary Kate Forbes (below) wrote: “This echoes the position for Scotland. Nevertheless we will honour our commitment to allocate £290m to deal with the cost of living crisis in Scotland, with details announced tomorrow.
“It will require us to revise the latest budget position I set out to the Scot Parl last week.”'
New: The UK hopes the DUP walkout will prompt a "big enough" EU move on the Protocol this month
Senior government source says failing to resolve it before May election means the DUP likely won't form an Executive. "That’d put us in a very difficult place"
And very suitable under a Cyclefree header. Is right place for cash for access under bribery?
I have no wish to be banned - or say anything sub judicial, are we allowed to speculate the money for the flat and then the Dowden meeting looks like a case of straight forward corruption? Are we allowed to post, in my opinion it looks like a case of cash getting access?
Corruption and bribery are quite hard to prove. Let alone by the Met which admitted last year that it did not have a working definition of corruption for its own use.
Breaches of various Parliamentary standards and codes would be easier, assuming we can find another brave civil servant not under investigation themselves to look at it.
Ah! I do not watch TV any more. Since I am not into quiz shows, soaps and inane comedy there is not enough to interest me. There is far more interesting content on YouTube of all places. Some of the Physics, Maths and Astrophysics stuff from various university depts is very good.
Legal question: if you have evidence that somebody has accepted bribes, and the police fail to prosecute, is there any way a civil case can be brought by a third party?
Interesting question. A first glance comment:
It may be worth looking at the tort of conspiracy if, and only if, you can show that you may have suffered loss by the actions of the other two parties.
So A trades in plastic ducks. So does B. B bribes C, a wholesale purchase of plastic ducks, to contract with B for the delivery of 400 million plastic ducks.
A, despite being wholly uninvolved may have a cause of action in conspiracy for loss of opportunity.
Not sure. There is no doubt plenty more to be said.
At the moment there isn't a route that springs to mind where the third party has no interest in the matter except a moral one. But maybe there is.
BTW when people want to litigate out of principle and not for money (as perhaps in this question) lawyers rub their hands together.
What if the taxpater believes he has suffered loss due to the tort, perhaps made non-trivial by being a repeat occurrence?
A very interesting question which I am sure has a simple answer. I think the answer must be No as a matter of public policy but, sorry, I don't have an authority to hand.
Chernobyl’s illuminations were much better in 1986.
I've never actually been to Blackpool, but I hear great things.
Don't be fooled. It sucks.
Blackpool rock gave you toothache?
The town of Blackpool is a bit grim. But the front, and the beach, are splendid. The sunsets over the Irish Sea are amongst the finest in the country. The promenade is surprisingly classy. The illuminations are fun. Enjoy it for what it is, rather than despising it for what it isn't, and it's a lovely place to be for the day. I've been with the family about six times in the past two years. Genuinely enjoyed myself every time.
I have had a couple of weekends there, albeit a couple of decades ago. It is fun, but you have to enter the spirit of the place. All wear viking helmets, eat fish and chips, be a bit lairy with a few beers.
And be careful about the trousers - or chernobyl fallout.
I fear the half life on this latest round of punning with be about 64 years.
I’m not going fuse with the rest of you on this. I’m going to remain neutron, even if you call me an old boron.
Because today, as one of Boris Green Knights has told us, is the greatest day in human science since the discovery of quilted toilet tissue. Nuclear Fusion is only 10 years away.
As with the BoE Governor, at best these people have no real understanding of the situation of those on low and middling incomes. At worse they do, but the plight of the people is nonetheless entirely subordinate to guaranteeing the growth of their asset portfolios.
Regardless, examples of a ruling class of which we would be well rid.
Utterly indefensible.
If the Chancellor didn't want people to ask for a payrise, he shouldn't have put up taxes so people need more money to take home the same amount.
Except he's also put up employers payroll tax too, so employers will struggle as it is let alone to meet any wage demands without putting prices up considerably.
The Chancellor has created the perfect storm in increasing two taxes on wages at the same time.
The broader point here is that the answer to the threat of a wage-price spiral from City and right-wing figures is, inevitably, to ask the workers to bend over and take another rogering. None of them seem to be asking whether businesses, which are by no means all on their uppers, might consider absorbing the hit and accepting lower profits and paying smaller dividends to their shareholders for a change.
The entire system is focussed on driving up asset prices at the expense of reducing an ever larger fraction of wage earners to penury: we're going to need an awful lot of new food banks when those huge energy price hikes start hitting people in the wallet, and most of the new clients are going to be the working poor not people stuck on benefits.
The problem wasn't necessarily about putting up taxation to balance the books; the real issue is that the Chancellor expressly chose to soak wages in preference to capital gains and property.
I'm still astonished that the dividend income tax rate was also upped by 1.25% on the basis that it was the fairest way of catching "workers who pay themselves via dividends to avoid NI". Even on its own terms it's illiterate: if that's the policy aim it should have been a 2.5% increase to match the combined increase in employer and employee NI. But the worst bit was the subtext: we're really sorry that this will also hit those who receive investment income, but it's the only way we can think of to clobber those pesky workers. The attitude is that tax rates on unearned income are sacrosanct, and only to be increased in the context of trying to tax labour.
Everything about the policy suggests that specialists were nowhere near it and it was just cooked up by a couple of non-expert politicians - which I suppose correlates with Johnson's determination to announce it himself outside the normal Budget cycle.
It's also ultimately self-defeating for the Conservatives, just like runaway house price inflation. Eventually the country will be so polarised between a growing number of poor people and a shrinking number of rich, largely elderly, people (with the middle class having been largely wiped out by growing taxes and ludicrous housing costs) that no amount of efficiency in the bent electoral system will keep them afloat, and the majority will vote for socialism. The entire system that they value will then be pulled apart.
Then again, short-termism is the classic curse of democratic politics. The lot who are in today only care about surviving the next election. No thought is given to the fate that may be waiting for them when enough of today's piss-poor millennials are touching 50 and the current generation of codgers is pushing up the daisies.
New: The UK hopes the DUP walkout will prompt a "big enough" EU move on the Protocol this month
Senior government source says failing to resolve it before May election means the DUP likely won't form an Executive. "That’d put us in a very difficult place"
As with the BoE Governor, at best these people have no real understanding of the situation of those on low and middling incomes. At worse they do, but the plight of the people is nonetheless entirely subordinate to guaranteeing the growth of their asset portfolios.
Regardless, examples of a ruling class of which we would be well rid.
Utterly indefensible.
If the Chancellor didn't want people to ask for a payrise, he shouldn't have put up taxes so people need more money to take home the same amount.
Except he's also put up employers payroll tax too, so employers will struggle as it is let alone to meet any wage demands without putting prices up considerably.
The Chancellor has created the perfect storm in increasing two taxes on wages at the same time.
The broader point here is that the answer to the threat of a wage-price spiral from City and right-wing figures is, inevitably, to ask the workers to bend over and take another rogering. None of them seem to be asking whether businesses, which are by no means all on their uppers, might consider absorbing the hit and accepting lower profits and paying smaller dividends to their shareholders for a change.
The entire system is focussed on driving up asset prices at the expense of reducing an ever larger fraction of wage earners to penury: we're going to need an awful lot of new food banks when those huge energy price hikes start hitting people in the wallet, and most of the new clients are going to be the working poor not people stuck on benefits.
The problem wasn't necessarily about putting up taxation to balance the books; the real issue is that the Chancellor expressly chose to soak wages in preference to capital gains and property.
I'm still astonished that the dividend income tax rate was also upped by 1.25% on the basis that it was the fairest way of catching "workers who pay themselves via dividends to avoid NI". Even on its own terms it's illiterate: if that's the policy aim it should have been a 2.5% increase to match the combined increase in employer and employee NI. But the worst bit was the subtext: we're really sorry that this will also hit those who receive investment income, but it's the only way we can think of to clobber those pesky workers. The attitude is that tax rates on unearned income are sacrosanct, and only to be increased in the context of trying to tax labour.
Everything about the policy suggests that specialists were nowhere near it and it was just cooked up by a couple of non-expert politicians - which I suppose correlates with Johnson's determination to announce it himself outside the normal Budget cycle.
It's also ultimately self-defeating for the Conservatives, just like runaway house price inflation. Eventually the country will be so polarised between a growing number of poor people and a shrinking number of rich, largely elderly, people (with the middle class having been largely wiped out by growing taxes and ludicrous housing costs) that no amount of efficiency in the bent electoral system will keep them afloat, and the majority will vote for socialism. The entire system that they value will then be pulled apart.
Then again, short-termism is the classic curse of democratic politics. The lot who are in today only care about surviving the next election. No thought is given to the fate that may be waiting for them when enough of today's piss-poor millennials are touching 50 and the current generation of codgers is pushing up the daisies.
I agree except that based on the last few weeks I'd substitute "surviving tomorrow's headlines" for "surviving the next election".
As with the BoE Governor, at best these people have no real understanding of the situation of those on low and middling incomes. At worse they do, but the plight of the people is nonetheless entirely subordinate to guaranteeing the growth of their asset portfolios.
Regardless, examples of a ruling class of which we would be well rid.
Utterly indefensible.
If the Chancellor didn't want people to ask for a payrise, he shouldn't have put up taxes so people need more money to take home the same amount.
Except he's also put up employers payroll tax too, so employers will struggle as it is let alone to meet any wage demands without putting prices up considerably.
The Chancellor has created the perfect storm in increasing two taxes on wages at the same time.
The broader point here is that the answer to the threat of a wage-price spiral from City and right-wing figures is, inevitably, to ask the workers to bend over and take another rogering. None of them seem to be asking whether businesses, which are by no means all on their uppers, might consider absorbing the hit and accepting lower profits and paying smaller dividends to their shareholders for a change.
The entire system is focussed on driving up asset prices at the expense of reducing an ever larger fraction of wage earners to penury: we're going to need an awful lot of new food banks when those huge energy price hikes start hitting people in the wallet, and most of the new clients are going to be the working poor not people stuck on benefits.
The problem wasn't necessarily about putting up taxation to balance the books; the real issue is that the Chancellor expressly chose to soak wages in preference to capital gains and property.
I'm still astonished that the dividend income tax rate was also upped by 1.25% on the basis that it was the fairest way of catching "workers who pay themselves via dividends to avoid NI". Even on its own terms it's illiterate: if that's the policy aim it should have been a 2.5% increase to match the combined increase in employer and employee NI. But the worst bit was the subtext: we're really sorry that this will also hit those who receive investment income, but it's the only way we can think of to clobber those pesky workers. The attitude is that tax rates on unearned income are sacrosanct, and only to be increased in the context of trying to tax labour.
Everything about the policy suggests that specialists were nowhere near it and it was just cooked up by a couple of non-expert politicians - which I suppose correlates with Johnson's determination to announce it himself outside the normal Budget cycle.
It's also ultimately self-defeating for the Conservatives, just like runaway house price inflation. Eventually the country will be so polarised between a growing number of poor people and a shrinking number of rich, largely elderly, people (with the middle class having been largely wiped out by growing taxes and ludicrous housing costs) that no amount of efficiency in the bent electoral system will keep them afloat, and the majority will vote for socialism. The entire system that they value will then be pulled apart.
Then again, short-termism is the classic curse of democratic politics. The lot who are in today only care about surviving the next election. No thought is given to the fate that may be waiting for them when enough of today's piss-poor millennials are touching 50 and the current generation of codgers is pushing up the daisies.
I agree except that based on the last few weeks I'd substitute "surviving tomorrow's headlines" for "surviving the next election".
Two months, three days without a Tory lead and counting...
Half a century without a Tory lead and counting...
Should Scotland become once again Scotland the politics will be very interesting. Small c conservatism must be a big part of the SNP vote, and the SNP will disintegrate.
Bloody well hope so. Can’t wait to see the back of the SNP.
back of the uk, or back of the snp? what's better?
Both good. It is a badge of shame that an organisation like the SNP is needed. The tool should only exist to get the job done, and then be discarded.
The job being independence? (Which was why I asked the question as I did, and why I'm a little surprised)
Of course. Normal countries don’t need independence movements. Scotland needs to become a normal country.
I don’t really understand why you would be surprised.
Surprised perhaps because the demise of the SNP rates with the demise of the UK.
The UK isn't entrapping the Scottish nation. There may be quibbles, but it's pretty clear that there will be opportunities to depart ahead. That has to be considered fair, but perhaps very far from 'fair enough'.
I think it is fair to say that a few loons go along way. It is Resistance GB who are claiming this is a staged false flag event.
I note the Guardian has an article about William Coleshill who heads Resistance GB, a conspiracy theory group, who was amongst those personally hassling Starmer. He has also hassled Gove and Jess Philips and for the benefit of @NerysHughes he is an ex_Tory Councillor and apparently even managed to get a selfie canvasing with Boris. The Tory's were sensible enough to throw him out of the party pretty quickly, but it shows that the nutters (unlike @NerysHughes thinks) come from all sides. Once they move onto the loony conspiracy front it really doesn't matter what their origins are, they are all as bad as one another and we shouldn't be pandering to this sort of stuff.
But that's the ooint, nutters can come from all sides but the Tories are reasonably quick at expelling their nutters.
Corbyn and his band of nutters were mollycoddled within Labour for decades and many of his ilk are still there as Labour acts like only the right has issues by defining anyone they dislike (egardless of their economics) as far right. As a result they almost never see the beam in their own eye.
A leftwing Coleshill wouldn't be expelled from Labour anywhere near as quickly.
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it isn't the point I was making. It was just really a rant on the nutters and a jibe at NerysHughes for his previous bonkers posts that excuses Boris for any behaviour on the basis that the left do unacceptable stuff also.
Re your assertion l suspect I agree, but it is not that clear cut. Corbyn was extreme in not resolving issues, undoubtedly because he sympathised with some. Also the Tories haven't always been quick to get rid of some dodgy characters.
Two months, three days without a Tory lead and counting...
Half a century without a Tory lead and counting...
Should Scotland become once again Scotland the politics will be very interesting. Small c conservatism must be a big part of the SNP vote, and the SNP will disintegrate.
Bloody well hope so. Can’t wait to see the back of the SNP.
back of the uk, or back of the snp? what's better?
Both good. It is a badge of shame that an organisation like the SNP is needed. The tool should only exist to get the job done, and then be discarded.
The job being independence? (Which was why I asked the question as I did, and why I'm a little surprised)
Of course. Normal countries don’t need independence movements. Scotland needs to become a normal country.
I don’t really understand why you would be surprised.
Surprised perhaps because the demise of the SNP rates with the demise of the UK.
The UK isn't entrapping the Scottish nation. There may be quibbles, but it's pretty clear that there will be opportunities to depart ahead. That has to be considered fair, but perhaps very far from 'fair enough'.
One requires the other. The UK will not be dissolved prior to the SNP being dissolved. The SNP will not be dissolved prior to the UK being dissolved. So of course the demise of the SNP rates with the demise of the UK. It’s the same thing.
Comments
Edit: Apols, I see I am rather late to the, er, 'work-related gathering' on this one.
Corbyn and his band of nutters were mollycoddled within Labour for decades and many of his ilk are still there as Labour acts like only the right has issues by defining anyone they dislike (egardless of their economics) as far right. As a result they almost never see the beam in their own eye.
A leftwing Coleshill wouldn't be expelled from Labour anywhere near as quickly.
The entire system is focussed on driving up asset prices at the expense of reducing an ever larger fraction of wage earners to penury: we're going to need an awful lot of new food banks when those huge energy price hikes start hitting people in the wallet, and most of the new clients are going to be the working poor not people stuck on benefits.
The problem wasn't necessarily about putting up taxation to balance the books; the real issue is that the Chancellor expressly chose to soak wages in preference to capital gains and property.
NI is part of the UK - it gets governened in that way. The RoI see it differently. They wish to see NI governend differently.
Somebody on here recently mentioned the "possible" successors and listed Truss, Patel, Raab, Javid and one or two other non-entities. I nearly had a rupture laughing at the thought of any of that lot being able to tie their shoelaces never mind govern.
We are in for a very bad couple of years. By the time we get to 2024 Starmer is going to look like a political colossus.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/09/met-police-considering-whether-investigate-pm-boris-johnson-downing-street-flat-refurb
And very suitable under a Cyclefree header. Is right place for cash for access under bribery?
I have no wish to be banned - or say anything sub judicial, are we allowed to speculate the money for the flat and then the Dowden meeting looks like a case of straight forward corruption? Are we allowed to post, in my opinion it looks like a case of cash getting access?
Everything about the policy suggests that specialists were nowhere near it and it was just cooked up by a couple of non-expert politicians - which I suppose correlates with Johnson's determination to announce it himself outside the normal Budget cycle.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sfo-head-lisa-osofsky-faces-questions-over-investigators-failings-lmxp8bj6k
I was once interviewed by them as, according to them, an essential witness in a LIBOR trial. This was bollocks on stilts. The interview was amateurishly bad. I was told to expect to be called as a witness the day I was due to go the Hampton Court flower show. I was furious. At the last minute prosecution counsel finally read the statement and told the SFO not to be so bloody silly and I was stood down.
I just don't know why they are so bad. But it really hampers our ability to deal with financial crime effectively enough - and has done for years.
The First Minister has said that Wales has been told it will receive no new money as a result of the UK Government’s plan for an energy costs rebate in England.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak last week announced the rebate for residents in band A-D properties in England, after the energy price cap was hiked.
He said at the time that devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would receive around £565 million of Barnett funding as a result of the Council Tax Energy Rebate in England.
But Mark Drakeford today said that this was not the case.
https://nation.cymru/news/no-money-for-wales-from-uk-governments-energy-cost-rebate-for-england-first-minister-says/
I can't imagine a reason either, it's almost like there was money involved.
I don’t really understand why you would be surprised.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19911629.no-barnett-cash-scotland-wales-despite-treasurys-claim-devolved-leaders-say/
'Sunak also repeated this claim in Parliament more than once.
"I am happy to confirm that the Barnett consequentials for Scotland will be around £290 million," he told MPs.
"Because the council tax system is England-only, total Barnett consequentials of about £565 million will be provided to the devolved administrations in the usual way," Sunak also claimed.
The Chancellor (above) also said he could "confirm ... £175 million or so in Barnett consequentials" for Wales, and later scolded a Welsh Labour MP for "not welcoming" the cash.
[...]
A Welsh Government spokesperson suggested any lack of new funding could be because the council tax rebate announced by the Tories was not truly new money. If no further cash has actually been allocated to England, no consequentials will flow to the Senedd or Holyrood.
Sharing Drakeford’s tweet, SNP cabinet secretary Kate Forbes (below) wrote: “This echoes the position for Scotland. Nevertheless we will honour our commitment to allocate £290m to deal with the cost of living crisis in Scotland, with details announced tomorrow.
“It will require us to revise the latest budget position I set out to the Scot Parl last week.”'
If the NI executive had been functioning then maybe a better deal could have been struck. But Ulster (or at least the DUP) says no.
Breaches of various Parliamentary standards and codes would be easier, assuming we can find another brave civil servant not under investigation themselves to look at it.
I’m not going fuse with the rest of you on this. I’m going to remain neutron, even if you call me an old boron.
Because today, as one of Boris Green Knights has told us, is the greatest day in human science since the discovery of quilted toilet tissue. Nuclear Fusion is only 10 years away.
Then again, short-termism is the classic curse of democratic politics. The lot who are in today only care about surviving the next election. No thought is given to the fate that may be waiting for them when enough of today's piss-poor millennials are touching 50 and the current generation of codgers is pushing up the daisies.
Meanwhile, people looking for jobs are responding to market incentives in the way that Conservatives are meant to understand;
The rate of new applications [for teacher training] coming through over the last couple of months (green line) have been pretty dire
https://twitter.com/JackWorthNFER/status/1491092380157558784?s=20&t=KsFlV77f1fuIfYMAlV0MUQ
The UK isn't entrapping the Scottish nation. There may be quibbles, but it's pretty clear that there will be opportunities to depart ahead. That has to be considered fair, but perhaps very far from 'fair enough'.
Re your assertion l suspect I agree, but it is not that clear cut. Corbyn was extreme in not resolving issues, undoubtedly because he sympathised with some. Also the Tories haven't always been quick to get rid of some dodgy characters.