I flagged as spam a clear breach of the number one rule of the comments (and the said post has now been deleted). Meanwhile, someone (I could guess who) has been marking me as spam and off topic all afternoon.
(Edit: including this one! They must really be obsessed with me, to carry on after a warning from @PBModerator...)
Ex equalities minister says Government must focus on tackling inflation rather than devising ‘micro-policies’ to fix cost-of-living crisis
I watched her launch and she also hinted at means testing winter fuel payments.
Good. It’s supposed to be for those who can’t heat their homes, not those who want to book a holiday to get away from winter - like my parents.
The worry with that is that means testing means administrative costs, which (as Sir Humphrey would tell you) can always be made to outweigh the savings.
Yep - which is why everything used so far has been based on accessible data - such as council tax band which is easy to identify and works as a fairly accurate proxy for the desired target demographic. .
IIRC there was a ridiculous commentary piece not long after Rishi became Chancellor from some pundit making a ridiculous point about someone else making a comment about finding Starmer more attractive than Rishi, who was objectively more good looking.
IDK, not my type but he seems at least interesting looking, I can see people thinking so.
Personally I think he looks like he's gone the distance with Mike Tyson, but that's life's rich tapestry.
Look, I think Labour are perfectly entitled to call a confidence debate. I think if that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. I think it’s Westminster tittle-tattle but if the Labour Party thinks it can derive political advantage by forcing the Tories to vote confidence in the government then that is their prerogative. Personally I don’t think people will give two hoots on who voted what in a symbolic vote in July 2022 by the time the next election rolls round, but thats up to them.
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.
Holding that vote actually matters quite a lot at a point where we are in uncharted constitutional territory. It would be more than a symbolic vote.
We will on current plans have had to endure 2 full months of a zombie Government under a PM who has the confidence of very few MPs in his own party and no other MP. In those circumstances, there must be some mechanism to force the PM out. This motion would have provided it - I don't think it would have forced a general election given its conditional nature, but it would have effectively forced out the PM immediately (or forced the Conservatives to dump him in short order to avoid the condition for a GE being met) in favour of a temporary successor such as Raab.
Allowing the PM to block a parliamentary motion that would have required the immediate departure of the PM is a bad constitutional outcome.
Agreed. Tories are relying on highly dubious procedural pettifogging to obscure the reality.
Still, it worked to convince (for example) @Big_G_NorthWales , so I suppose it served its point.
Detective Inspector Chris 'underpants' Bryant of the Yard is on to Kemi's hacking Hes obviously only just found out about it such is his breathless questioning whether it constitutes a crime on twitter Tit
Twenty-first century Inspector Lestrade, but without that old-school copper's integrity OR intelligence?
Mordaunt is a stronger candidate than Sunak and Badenoch is better than Truss
Sunak has big money backing and has been preparing for this for ages. He is the establishment candidate and enjoys a clear advantage with MPs. Truss is best placed to pick up votes from the right as the contest narrows. Both have had big jobs in Cabinet. Mordaunt looks best placed to beat Labour but lacks experience. She is something of a blank slate on which people are projecting whatever they want to see. That is even more true of Badenoch. A few weeks ago few had heard of her, let alone seen her as a serious contender for PM. This is not a vote for a LOTO but for a sitting PM. Badenoch would represent the ultimate Hail Mary pass. I think the Tories would be very brave to pick her, in both the literal and the Yes Minister meanings of the word.
Maybe the shock result in the first round could be Hunt being first to go. Sky News saying there was uncertainty as to whether he would the get the numbers for nomination.
Any MP seconding Zahawi’s nomination should get a snap inspection from the taxman. And if that’s clean, deselected by their local party for being morons.
Ex equalities minister says Government must focus on tackling inflation rather than devising ‘micro-policies’ to fix cost-of-living crisis
I watched her launch and she also hinted at means testing winter fuel payments.
Good. It’s supposed to be for those who can’t heat their homes, not those who want to book a holiday to get away from winter - like my parents.
The worry with that is that means testing means administrative costs, which (as Sir Humphrey would tell you) can always be made to outweigh the savings.
Why should taxing winter fuel payments add to admin costs?
HMRC can easily get the tax references of beneficiaries from whatever the Pension peeps are called these days. And, while they're at it, ask District Councils to give them the same data for bus passes.
It's potty - though not immensely significant - that relatively affluent old farts like me get our age-related tax free. The sooner we pay tax, the sooner the State can start looking properly at the real poverty problems among pensioners who don't own their own houses.
Look, I think Labour are perfectly entitled to call a confidence debate. I think if that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. I think it’s Westminster tittle-tattle but if the Labour Party thinks it can derive political advantage by forcing the Tories to vote confidence in the government then that is their prerogative. Personally I don’t think people will give two hoots on who voted what in a symbolic vote in July 2022 by the time the next election rolls round, but thats up to them.
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.
Holding that vote actually matters quite a lot at a point where we are in uncharted constitutional territory. It would be more than a symbolic vote.
We will on current plans have had to endure 2 full months of a zombie Government under a PM who has the confidence of very few MPs in his own party and no other MP. In those circumstances, there must be some mechanism to force the PM out. This motion would have provided it - I don't think it would have forced a general election given its conditional nature, but it would have effectively forced out the PM immediately (or forced the Conservatives to dump him in short order to avoid the condition for a GE being met) in favour of a temporary successor such as Raab.
Allowing the PM to block a parliamentary motion that would have required the immediate departure of the PM is a bad constitutional outcome.
Agreed. Tories are relying on highly dubious procedural pettifogging to obscure the reality.
Still, it worked to convince (for example) @Big_G_NorthWales , so I suppose it served its point.
Detective Inspector Chris 'underpants' Bryant of the Yard is on to Kemi's hacking Hes obviously only just found out about it such is his breathless questioning whether it constitutes a crime on twitter Tit
Twenty-first century Inspector Lestrade, but without that old-school copper's integrity OR intelligence?
Given Lestrade is described as a sallow rat eyed fellow i couldnt possibly comment!
I see that the Tour de France was disrupted by the eco-fascists today. French Tv absolutely has the right policy, no mention of what they are protesting nor any pictures of them. Instead showed lovely pictures of the mountains.
This is like when there was a streaker problem. When tv stopped showing them and "joining in with the fun", they have pretty much disappeared.
But Eurosport commentary explained who they were and what they wanted.
Ex equalities minister says Government must focus on tackling inflation rather than devising ‘micro-policies’ to fix cost-of-living crisis
I watched her launch and she also hinted at means testing winter fuel payments.
Good. It’s supposed to be for those who can’t heat their homes, not those who want to book a holiday to get away from winter - like my parents.
The worry with that is that means testing means administrative costs, which (as Sir Humphrey would tell you) can always be made to outweigh the savings.
Why should taxing winter fuel payments add to admin costs?
HMRC can easily get the tax references of beneficiaries from whatever the Pension peeps are called these days. And, while they're at it, ask District Councils to give them the same data for bus passes.
It's potty - though not immensely significant - that relatively affluent old farts like me get our age-related tax free. The sooner we pay tax, the sooner the State can start looking properly at the real poverty problems among pensioners who don't own their own houses.
That isn't how things work - data can't be randomly transferred like that
Is it Bay-denock or Bad-enock? Been irritating me all day.
Bad-enock.
I thought as much. Can we inform the media? It's incredibly disrespectful not to discover how someone says their name and then try to reproduce it. Just rude.
Mordaunt is a stronger candidate than Sunak and Badenoch is better than Truss
Sunak has big money backing and has been preparing for this for ages. He is the establishment candidate and enjoys a clear advantage with MPs. Truss is best placed to pick up votes from the right as the contest narrows. Both have had big jobs in Cabinet. Mordaunt looks best placed to beat Labour but lacks experience. She is something of a blank slate on which people are projecting whatever they want to see. That is even more true of Badenoch. A few weeks ago few had heard of her, let alone seen her as a serious contender for PM. This is not a vote for a LOTO but for a sitting PM. Badenoch would represent the ultimate Hail Mary pass. I think the Tories would be very brave to pick her, in both the literal and the Yes Minister meanings of the word.
Look, I think Labour are perfectly entitled to call a confidence debate. I think if that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. I think it’s Westminster tittle-tattle but if the Labour Party thinks it can derive political advantage by forcing the Tories to vote confidence in the government then that is their prerogative. Personally I don’t think people will give two hoots on who voted what in a symbolic vote in July 2022 by the time the next election rolls round, but thats up to them.
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.
Holding that vote actually matters quite a lot at a point where we are in uncharted constitutional territory. It would be more than a symbolic vote.
We will on current plans have had to endure 2 full months of a zombie Government under a PM who has the confidence of very few MPs in his own party and no other MP. In those circumstances, there must be some mechanism to force the PM out. This motion would have provided it - I don't think it would have forced a general election given its conditional nature, but it would have effectively forced out the PM immediately (or forced the Conservatives to dump him in short order to avoid the condition for a GE being met) in favour of a temporary successor such as Raab.
Allowing the PM to block a parliamentary motion that would have required the immediate departure of the PM is a bad constitutional outcome.
Agreed. Tories are relying on highly dubious procedural pettifogging to obscure the reality.
Still, it worked to convince (for example) @Big_G_NorthWales , so I suppose it served its point.
I feel like Sunak would only win against Hunt, and maybe Tugendhat. I was surprised by my anecdote generator that not only did he already recognise him and not like him, he'd picked up Sunak's comments about tax cuts and was not supportive.
I flagged as spam a clear breach of the number one rule of the comments (and the said post has now been deleted). Meanwhile, someone (I could guess who) has been marking me as spam and off topic all afternoon.
(Edit: including this one! They must really be obsessed with me, to carry on after a warning from @PBModerator...)
You OT'd me the other day when i replied to a thread about the remain/brexit tactics
Ex equalities minister says Government must focus on tackling inflation rather than devising ‘micro-policies’ to fix cost-of-living crisis
I watched her launch and she also hinted at means testing winter fuel payments.
Good. It’s supposed to be for those who can’t heat their homes, not those who want to book a holiday to get away from winter - like my parents.
The worry with that is that means testing means administrative costs, which (as Sir Humphrey would tell you) can always be made to outweigh the savings.
Why should taxing winter fuel payments add to admin costs?
HMRC can easily get the tax references of beneficiaries from whatever the Pension peeps are called these days. And, while they're at it, ask District Councils to give them the same data for bus passes.
It's potty - though not immensely significant - that relatively affluent old farts like me get our age-related tax free. The sooner we pay tax, the sooner the State can start looking properly at the real poverty problems among pensioners who don't own their own houses.
Are you sure DSS use UTR tax references at all? IIRC they only use their own number - logically enough the NI Number. Which should surely do just as well.
Edit: DSS can't even provide annual P60s for some reason which completely escapes me - a complete pain.
What happens if there's a tie for last place and they both get at least 30 votes?
I don't have a reference to hand, but IIRC from last time a tie for last place excludes both.
Because I was a weird teenager I can remember what happened in 1997 when there was a tie for last place in the first round between (I think) Peter Lillee and Michael Ancram. The round was run again, and this time they both would have been eliminated if the same thing had happened again, which it didn't. Those rules had to be made up on the hoof by the 1922 Committee.
I see that the Tour de France was disrupted by the eco-fascists today. French Tv absolutely has the right policy, no mention of what they are protesting nor any pictures of them. Instead showed lovely pictures of the mountains.
This is like when there was a streaker problem. When tv stopped showing them and "joining in with the fun", they have pretty much disappeared.
But Eurosport commentary explained who they were and what they wanted.
And that's the problem. Just blank them out and they will stop gluing themselves to F1 racetracks and in front of the Tour de France peleton.
Look, I think Labour are perfectly entitled to call a confidence debate. I think if that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. I think it’s Westminster tittle-tattle but if the Labour Party thinks it can derive political advantage by forcing the Tories to vote confidence in the government then that is their prerogative. Personally I don’t think people will give two hoots on who voted what in a symbolic vote in July 2022 by the time the next election rolls round, but thats up to them.
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.
Holding that vote actually matters quite a lot at a point where we are in uncharted constitutional territory. It would be more than a symbolic vote.
We will on current plans have had to endure 2 full months of a zombie Government under a PM who has the confidence of very few MPs in his own party and no other MP. In those circumstances, there must be some mechanism to force the PM out. This motion would have provided it - I don't think it would have forced a general election given its conditional nature, but it would have effectively forced out the PM immediately (or forced the Conservatives to dump him in short order to avoid the condition for a GE being met) in favour of a temporary successor such as Raab.
Allowing the PM to block a parliamentary motion that would have required the immediate departure of the PM is a bad constitutional outcome.
Agreed. Tories are relying on highly dubious procedural pettifogging to obscure the reality.
Still, it worked to convince (for example) @Big_G_NorthWales , so I suppose it served its point.
I flagged as spam a clear breach of the number one rule of the comments (and the said post has now been deleted). Meanwhile, someone (I could guess who) has been marking me as spam and off topic all afternoon.
(Edit: including this one! They must really be obsessed with me, to carry on after a warning from @PBModerator...)
You OT'd me the other day when i replied to a thread about the remain/brexit tactics
Got a link? I don't recall that. Could have been a fat finger on my phone, if it was me.
Mordaunt is a stronger candidate than Sunak and Badenoch is better than Truss
Sunak has big money backing and has been preparing for this for ages. He is the establishment candidate and enjoys a clear advantage with MPs. Truss is best placed to pick up votes from the right as the contest narrows. Both have had big jobs in Cabinet. Mordaunt looks best placed to beat Labour but lacks experience. She is something of a blank slate on which people are projecting whatever they want to see. That is even more true of Badenoch. A few weeks ago few had heard of her, let alone seen her as a serious contender for PM. This is not a vote for a LOTO but for a sitting PM. Badenoch would represent the ultimate Hail Mary pass. I think the Tories would be very brave to pick her, in both the literal and the Yes Minister meanings of the word.
Ex equalities minister says Government must focus on tackling inflation rather than devising ‘micro-policies’ to fix cost-of-living crisis
I watched her launch and she also hinted at means testing winter fuel payments.
Good. It’s supposed to be for those who can’t heat their homes, not those who want to book a holiday to get away from winter - like my parents.
What would be the cost of means testing the benefit ?
There’s already means-tested Pension Credit, so very little. They’re just pointing the credit at a different database.
So it would be paid only to those who qualify for Means Tested Pension Credit ?
That would certainly make sense, but I don't expect that would be very popular at all. Anything else would be rather more costly to administer. Do you know how much ?
Look, I think Labour are perfectly entitled to call a confidence debate. I think if that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. I think it’s Westminster tittle-tattle but if the Labour Party thinks it can derive political advantage by forcing the Tories to vote confidence in the government then that is their prerogative. Personally I don’t think people will give two hoots on who voted what in a symbolic vote in July 2022 by the time the next election rolls round, but thats up to them.
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.
Holding that vote actually matters quite a lot at a point where we are in uncharted constitutional territory. It would be more than a symbolic vote.
We will on current plans have had to endure 2 full months of a zombie Government under a PM who has the confidence of very few MPs in his own party and no other MP. In those circumstances, there must be some mechanism to force the PM out. This motion would have provided it - I don't think it would have forced a general election given its conditional nature, but it would have effectively forced out the PM immediately (or forced the Conservatives to dump him in short order to avoid the condition for a GE being met) in favour of a temporary successor such as Raab.
Allowing the PM to block a parliamentary motion that would have required the immediate departure of the PM is a bad constitutional outcome.
Agreed. Tories are relying on highly dubious procedural pettifogging to obscure the reality.
Still, it worked to convince (for example) @Big_G_NorthWales , so I suppose it served its point.
I flagged as spam a clear breach of the number one rule of the comments (and the said post has now been deleted). Meanwhile, someone (I could guess who) has been marking me as spam and off topic all afternoon.
(Edit: including this one! They must really be obsessed with me, to carry on after a warning from @PBModerator...)
You OT'd me the other day when i replied to a thread about the remain/brexit tactics
Got a link? I don't recall that. Could have been a fat finger on my phone, if it was me.
Makes the good point that sunak haters should be kicking themselves for their premature ejaculation of the non dom stuff. Unless they have something even juicier in reserve...
Ex equalities minister says Government must focus on tackling inflation rather than devising ‘micro-policies’ to fix cost-of-living crisis
I watched her launch and she also hinted at means testing winter fuel payments.
Good. It’s supposed to be for those who can’t heat their homes, not those who want to book a holiday to get away from winter - like my parents.
What would be the cost of means testing the benefit ?
There’s already means-tested Pension Credit, so very little. They’re just pointing the credit at a different database.
So it would be paid only to those who qualify for Means Tested Pension Credit ?
Problem with means tested pension credit is that an awful lot of people who should claim it don't, In fact the most common time for people to start claiming it, is (from memory) after someone is checked for social care needs (so aged 75+)
That's why I suggested a while back that it makes sense to significantly increase the State Pension to remove the need for means testing while introducing NI at the same time.
I flagged as spam a clear breach of the number one rule of the comments (and the said post has now been deleted). Meanwhile, someone (I could guess who) has been marking me as spam and off topic all afternoon.
(Edit: including this one! They must really be obsessed with me, to carry on after a warning from @PBModerator...)
You OT'd me the other day when i replied to a thread about the remain/brexit tactics
Got a link? I don't recall that. Could have been a fat finger on my phone, if it was me.
Ex equalities minister says Government must focus on tackling inflation rather than devising ‘micro-policies’ to fix cost-of-living crisis
I watched her launch and she also hinted at means testing winter fuel payments.
Good. It’s supposed to be for those who can’t heat their homes, not those who want to book a holiday to get away from winter - like my parents.
The worry with that is that means testing means administrative costs, which (as Sir Humphrey would tell you) can always be made to outweigh the savings.
Why should taxing winter fuel payments add to admin costs?
HMRC can easily get the tax references of beneficiaries from whatever the Pension peeps are called these days. And, while they're at it, ask District Councils to give them the same data for bus passes.
It's potty - though not immensely significant - that relatively affluent old farts like me get our age-related tax free. The sooner we pay tax, the sooner the State can start looking properly at the real poverty problems among pensioners who don't own their own houses.
Are you sure DSS use UTR tax references at all? IIRC they only use their own number - logically enough the NI Number. Which should surely do just as well.
It'd take the rest of the day to find recent letters from either. But HMRC never have a problem knowing how much state pension I get, even before I fill in a tax return - and DSS have no problem working out whether the winter fuel allowance should be credited to me or Mrs F.
and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison).
We can read, Nick: it's the only one in eight hundred years of Parliamentary history that Labour have found to support their case, and the wording is still completely different. If Labour think it's "a similar motion", let them bring forward the 1965 wording and see who's ignoring conventions and precedents.
"... it's the only one in eight hundred years of Parliamentary history ..."
That of course is utter bollocks, as a quick visit to wiki would confirm:
When is the Dog Named Wallace going to bark about Sunak then? Or is he doing it behind closed doors? Logically if he sees all the candidates as equally supportive of Ukraine, he’ll stay quiet on the basis that they would all keep him in post. If he genuinely fears how a Sunak premiership might impact things, I guess he’ll wait until the final 3?
Look, I think Labour are perfectly entitled to call a confidence debate. I think if that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. I think it’s Westminster tittle-tattle but if the Labour Party thinks it can derive political advantage by forcing the Tories to vote confidence in the government then that is their prerogative. Personally I don’t think people will give two hoots on who voted what in a symbolic vote in July 2022 by the time the next election rolls round, but thats up to them.
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.
Holding that vote actually matters quite a lot at a point where we are in uncharted constitutional territory. It would be more than a symbolic vote.
We will on current plans have had to endure 2 full months of a zombie Government under a PM who has the confidence of very few MPs in his own party and no other MP. In those circumstances, there must be some mechanism to force the PM out. This motion would have provided it - I don't think it would have forced a general election given its conditional nature, but it would have effectively forced out the PM immediately (or forced the Conservatives to dump him in short order to avoid the condition for a GE being met) in favour of a temporary successor such as Raab.
Allowing the PM to block a parliamentary motion that would have required the immediate departure of the PM is a bad constitutional outcome.
Agreed. Tories are relying on highly dubious procedural pettifogging to obscure the reality.
Still, it worked to convince (for example) @Big_G_NorthWales , so I suppose it served its point.
I just found it amusing
Sure.
You need to lighten up a wee bit
It is amusing
It sets a most unamusing precedent.
What, that "temporary no confidence" doesn't exist?
Is that the end of The Saj's career in front-line politics?
Why would it be?
Flounced out of the Cabinet (twice) attempted a Geoffrey Howe moment but was so transparently a leadership pitch that it blunted his message, is dull as dishwater and can't even get 20 people to back him for the leadership.
Comments
Ok, what’s the process from here?
(Edit: including this one! They must really be obsessed with me, to carry on after a warning from @PBModerator...)
Been irritating me all day.
How many will make it through tomorrow? 5?
Tories are relying on highly dubious procedural pettifogging to obscure the reality.
Still, it worked to convince (for example) @Big_G_NorthWales , so I suppose it served its point.
Even so - BRAVERMAN?
Mordaunt looks best placed to beat Labour but lacks experience. She is something of a blank slate on which people are projecting whatever they want to see. That is even more true of Badenoch. A few weeks ago few had heard of her, let alone seen her as a serious contender for PM. This is not a vote for a LOTO but for a sitting PM. Badenoch would represent the ultimate Hail Mary pass. I think the Tories would be very brave to pick her, in both the literal and the Yes Minister meanings of the word.
What needs to happen to proceed to the second vote?
Edit; answered by Eek
HMRC can easily get the tax references of beneficiaries from whatever the Pension peeps are called these days. And, while they're at it, ask District Councils to give them the same data for bus passes.
It's potty - though not immensely significant - that relatively affluent old farts like me get our age-related tax free. The sooner we pay tax, the sooner the State can start looking properly at the real poverty problems among pensioners who don't own their own houses.
The chance of a Tory majority are more like 6/4.
And this time they don't get to collect signatures on paper...
It's incredibly disrespectful not to discover how someone says their name and then try to reproduce it.
Just rude.
I hope you are managing your mood swings. I have suffered from similar throughout my life. If it helps, they tend to smooth out with age.....
Rishi - 28%
Liz - 20%
Penny - 14%
Hunt - 9%
Edit: DSS can't even provide annual P60s for some reason which completely escapes me - a complete pain.
FIGHT!!!
It is amusing
But how do you know it was me?
He'd need to plan to move house shortly.
And they wanted Jav second.
I thinking Red Wall Tories don’t deserve to win anything 😇
If CoL gets worse I think we will see a 20 point Labour lead. I wonder if I can bet on such an outcome anywhere?
That would certainly make sense, but I don't expect that would be very popular at all. Anything else would be rather more costly to administer. Do you know how much ?
By the way, somebody suggested Johnson was privately backing her. Is this the first time he's backed rather than laid a woman?
His candidacy is a total waste of time.
Makes the good point that sunak haters should be kicking themselves for their premature ejaculation of the non dom stuff. Unless they have something even juicier in reserve...
That's why I suggested a while back that it makes sense to significantly increase the State Pension to remove the need for means testing while introducing NI at the same time.
it's the only one in eight hundred years of Parliamentary history that Labour have found to support their case
Feel free to tell me which of those votes of no confidence was worded in the same way as the current motion. Mandy Rice-Davies.
Waste of space....
Labour: we will do no deals with the SNP, if Scots want to get rid of the Tories they must vote Labour.
Also Labour: we are so definite about no deals with the SNP that we’ve suspended two councillors for refusing to support a deal with the Tories!
https://twitter.com/fr4ser/status/1546848092582023170?s=21&t=OoKkiwiSuswrucLvTD-1_Q
Whit an eejit.