Good morning from the Costa Blanca. Been in the sea, now for a potter round some beach front shops before a lazy lunch. Mmmmmm
Holiday posts really should come with photos for appropriate level of envy inducement.
This far Cookie's post from Gloucester services beats yours on that basis. Though it's also partly because I'd quite like a beetroot and feta pastie.
Would everyone like me to do a @Leon and post endless holiday snaps? Naah - but I will post some of the more interesting stuff we do.
We're staying in an off the beach apartment in El Campello (east of Alicante) which has cooled down a hot since yesterday. Will be doing the improv aircon trick with frozen products and the fans later.
Been coming here for 20 years - Spanish father -in-law lives in a house up the mountain, so between there and here a lot. But also the joy of the mountain range off the coast in this part of Spain - some amazing places to explore if you have a car (which we do - I genuinely love driving the Fiat Panda we seem to rent every time).
Actually I'm fairly sure that rather than post endless holiday snaps, @Leon simply posted the same one over and over again, each time ascribing it to a different location. An almost empty plate and glass on a table in a deserted bar, through whose railings could be seen some small boats on the water. If you looked closely, there was the same dish of bread rolls on the right in each picture.
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing states Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
Takes us back to the fundamental question- what is Brexit for?
For some of the 17 million, Brexit was absolutely about stopping people coming in and doing low-paid jobs, in the hope that pay for those jobs would rise without the jobs themselves vanishing as they became too expensive. For others, it was all about stopping people coming in, full stop. For those groups, this would be a betrayal of their vote.
For others, it was about letting people in, but in a controlled way. Or it was noting to do with migration, but something else again, maybe a specific Euroregulation that they saw as getting in the way of their business. Or democracy (though most people only complain about lack of democracy when some decision doesn't go their way). Or symbols. Or freeports. They'd be fine with this.
But once you dig down, it all becomes tricky. Any accommodation with the reality of an large multinational organisation on our doorstep will betray some slice of the Brexit vote. The only question is who does the government choose to betray.
Tricky if they can't really afford to lose any of them.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If you want to change "the way we do things" then
a) lead a grass-roots revolt in the Conservative Party to stop the members having a vote; or
b) get a Manifesto commitment to ensure only MPs appoint PMs, and then get that Party elected.
If you don't like things as they are, then agitate for change. Until then, "the way we do things" is absolutely justification.
Well, saying it is wrong is part of the groundswell which might lead to those things happening. If I mused in 1965 that male homosexuality being a crime felt a bit ho hum to me, I wouldn't feel that Jolly well get your MP to change his mind and alter his party's manifesto at the next election and change the law and until then it is ABSOLUTELY FINE, do you hear me? was a complete response.
Well it would have been, as we are a parliamentary democracy.
In any case party members are just electing the PM, that PM has no power to get anything through Parliament without the backing of the MPs the voters elected at the previous general election
Yes. The legitimacy of a parliamentary democracy to the extent it has any depends on not just votes but also ideas floating upwards from a grassroots level towards the legislature, which is why it is reductionist and pointless to try to shut down any debate below hoC level with Well that's the law, so there.
Voters get a say once every 4 or 5 years at a general election to keep parliamentary democratic legitimacy, that is quite enough.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
But the very point is that it doesn't respect the need of the leader to have the support of MPs - nobody ever goes through to the membership with a majority of the MPs because the system only requires you to have one third plus 1.
Yes, if the wider party must be involved, it might be better to run the contest the other way round, with members drawing up the shortlist and the parliamentary party deciding. At least that way, the winner would end up on more than 50 per cent of MPs.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
But the very point is that it doesn't respect the need of the leader to have the support of MPs - nobody ever goes through to the membership with a majority of the MPs because the system only requires you to have one third plus 1.
Which is quite enough, if they still don't have MPs support after a few years they lose a VONC as IDS did.
However Ken Clarke in 2001 clearly did not have the support of the voluntary party, nor at present does Sunak
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing states Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
I'd be interested to hear PB's principal Truss backer Bart Robert's take on this. For him having fruit left unpicked was just the market in action. So either Truss is bucking the market or his analysis is in tatters. (I actually tend to agree with Truss, who has realized that 'the market' actually spreads beyond our borders, but it'll be interesting to see how Bart attempts to escape the dilemma.)
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If you want to change "the way we do things" then
a) lead a grass-roots revolt in the Conservative Party to stop the members having a vote; or
b) get a Manifesto commitment to ensure only MPs appoint PMs, and then get that Party elected.
If you don't like things as they are, then agitate for change. Until then, "the way we do things" is absolutely justification.
Well, saying it is wrong is part of the groundswell which might lead to those things happening. If I mused in 1965 that male homosexuality being a crime felt a bit ho hum to me, I wouldn't feel that Jolly well get your MP to change his mind and alter his party's manifesto at the next election and change the law and until then it is ABSOLUTELY FINE, do you hear me? was a complete response.
Well it would have been, as we are a parliamentary democracy.
In any case party members are just electing the PM, that PM has no power to get anything through Parliament without the backing of the MPs the voters elected at the previous general election
Yes. The legitimacy of a parliamentary democracy to the extent it has any depends on not just votes but also ideas floating upwards from a grassroots level towards the legislature, which is why it is reductionist and pointless to try to shut down any debate below hoC level with Well that's the law, so there.
Voters get a sat once every 4 or 5 years at a general election to keep parliamentary democratic legitimacy, that is quite enough.
We are a representative not a direct democracy
Absolutely right; our governments are already too short term in their thinking - more frequent elections exacerbates that problem. Ideas coming from grassroots are what modern Party systems are for when they're operating effectively. I might argue that they're not at the moment but it doesn't change the fundamental correctness of the system.
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing states Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
I'd be interested to hear PB's principal Truss backer Bart Robert's take on this. For him having fruit left unpicked was just the market in action. So either Truss is bucking the market or his analysis is in tatters. (I actually tend to agree with Truss, who has realized that 'the market' actually spreads beyond our borders, but it'll be interesting to see how Bart attempts to escape the dilemma.)
Truss is bucking the market and I disagree with it, but its something that has been done virtually forever (even pre-EU accession), so something I'd expect any PM to continue with anyway.
There is far more logic though for seasonal picking visas where skilled people come in for a couple of months to do the work, then can return next season, than there is for people earning minimum wage living here permanently though.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Failures
Truss over Sunak Johnson over Hunt (Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal) Duncan Smith over Clarke Corbyn over Smith Corbyn over Burnham Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing states Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
I'd be interested to hear PB's principal Truss backer Bart Robert's take on this. For him having fruit left unpicked was just the market in action. So either Truss is bucking the market or his analysis is in tatters. (I actually tend to agree with Truss, who has realized that 'the market' actually spreads beyond our borders, but it'll be interesting to see how Bart attempts to escape the dilemma.)
Quite. If the Brexit treaty says everybody's left leg must be amputated and sent to Brussels, our domestic prosthetic left leg industry fills the gap. If all the Polish prosthetic left leg makers have gone home, wages rise to compensate.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
But the very point is that it doesn't respect the need of the leader to have the support of MPs - nobody ever goes through to the membership with a majority of the MPs because the system only requires you to have one third plus 1.
Which is quite enough, if they still don't have MPs support after a few years they lose a VONC as IDS did.
However Ken Clarke in 2001 clearly did not have the support of the voluntary party, nor at present does Sunak
Hardly a formula for stable government - and that was when we were in opposition. The membership element of this race has also been unedifying. At the outset I thought there was an outside chance of me rejoining the Party if Sunak won, but the last fortnight has actually confirmed that the Tory Party simply isn't for me anymore.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Labour MP for Wigan visits picket line of striking workers in Wigan to have a chat with them and indicate support for them. Hardly earth-shattering. Good on her.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Failures
Truss over Sunak Johnson over Hunt (Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal) Duncan Smith over Clarke Corbyn over Smith Corbyn over Burnham Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
May would have beaten Leadsom.
Johnson over Hunt was a success, as will be Truss over Sunak.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
I know that. Members choose the leader per Con rules and the party has a majority so that leader commands the Commons and is thus PM per Parliamentary rules. But those 2 rules together have produced an absurdity that is - on the deeper level - wrong.
Better would be if the vacancy arises in government - as here - the new leader is chosen by MPs only. These being the people *in* that Commons that the leader must command the confidence of in order to be PM. The members aspect is gratuitous and distorting in this case.
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Hang on, is that not a key objective companies are almost mandated to follow, if they can? By all means use it as an opportunity to search for a new deal (changing regularly with that kind of company is far, far cheaper) but why consider them scumbags for trying to make profits?
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
The "Professional" BT staff got about 2.5%.
Got to get back the losses from Gavin's expensive tickets to the footy.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Failures
Truss over Sunak Johnson over Hunt (Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal) Duncan Smith over Clarke Corbyn over Smith Corbyn over Burnham Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
A useful precis - in face there may be a thesis to be written on how extending the leadership suffrage to memberships has lead to the polarisation of British politics and the deserting of the centre, as the professional political classes (who know the need to work across Party lines and to find compromise) lost power to the amateurs.
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Hang on, is that not a key objective companies are almost mandated to follow, if they can? By all means use it as an opportunity to search for a new deal (changing regularly with that kind of company is far, far cheaper) but why consider them scumbags for trying to make profits?
The issue here is that BT, as the ex-monopoly, have got a lot of customers who will never switch from them and they are simply taking advantage of that market position. Personally I'm not with them but ultimately the network here is BT rather than Hyperoptic or some other alt-net so we still give them money.
My more general point is that Ofcom has, once again, taken their eye off the ball and BT are running riot.
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Hang on, is that not a key objective companies are almost mandated to follow, if they can? By all means use it as an opportunity to search for a new deal (changing regularly with that kind of company is far, far cheaper) but why consider them scumbags for trying to make profits?
No, its not, that is a myth. Goodwill is a valuable asset for many firms.
Companies can try to make a long-term profit by providing a good, reliable service at a fair price and treating their customers and colleagues with respect, building loyalty amongst both.
Or companies can be scumbags that try to abuse their customers and colleagues to extract a transient profit, which will burn bridges and destroy goodwill towards them.
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Hang on, is that not a key objective companies are almost mandated to follow, if they can? By all means use it as an opportunity to search for a new deal (changing regularly with that kind of company is far, far cheaper) but why consider them scumbags for trying to make profits?
The issue here is that BT, as the ex-monopoly, have got a lot of customers who will never switch from them and they are simply taking advantage of that market position. Personally I'm not with them but ultimately the network here is BT rather than Hyperoptic or some other alt-net so we still give them money.
My more general point is that Ofcom has, once again, taken their eye off the ball and BT are running riot.
Your ire should then be directed at either Ofcom or the party who appointed Dorries as the secretary of state responsible, not BT.
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing states Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
I'd be interested to hear PB's principal Truss backer Bart Robert's take on this. For him having fruit left unpicked was just the market in action. So either Truss is bucking the market or his analysis is in tatters. (I actually tend to agree with Truss, who has realized that 'the market' actually spreads beyond our borders, but it'll be interesting to see how Bart attempts to escape the dilemma.)
Quite. If the Brexit treaty says everybody's left leg must be amputated and sent to Brussels, our domestic prosthetic left leg industry fills the gap. If all the Polish prosthetic left leg makers have gone home, wages rise to compensate.
Excuse me?
If the Brexit treaty says everybody's left leg must be amputated then I would want Parliament to scrap that clause and not amputate anybody's legs.
I wouldn't be the one insisting "international law" must be followed by continuing with the amputations.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Good news. Well done to Johnson and Wallace, that can’t have been an easy deal.
Meanwhile, another enemy supply train heading to Kherson was taken out last night. The Russians have got no supply routes left into the city now, apart from the river. Starving them out starts now.
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Hang on, is that not a key objective companies are almost mandated to follow, if they can? By all means use it as an opportunity to search for a new deal (changing regularly with that kind of company is far, far cheaper) but why consider them scumbags for trying to make profits?
The issue here is that BT, as the ex-monopoly, have got a lot of customers who will never switch from them and they are simply taking advantage of that market position. Personally I'm not with them but ultimately the network here is BT rather than Hyperoptic or some other alt-net so we still give them money.
My more general point is that Ofcom has, once again, taken their eye off the ball and BT are running riot.
Naughty Max. Anyone can switch if they want, coverage notwithstanding.
@Cyclefree I have sent you a private message. Surprisingly I think I have found some very useful info re accommodation for your son plus it was quite an education for myself.
Thank you. I have seen and responded. Immensely helpful. X
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Failures
Truss over Sunak Johnson over Hunt (Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal) Duncan Smith over Clarke Corbyn over Smith Corbyn over Burnham Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
Truss over Sunak yet to be seen or decided.
Hunt would have failed to have got a majority against Corbyn and failed to get Brexit done (and Boris won most Tory MPs votes anyway).
May led members polling in 2017 but Leadsom might have been OK.
Clarke would have ripped the party apart over the Euro and EU and seen a surge to UKIP.
Corbyn granted but in 2017 he deprived the Tories of their majority which was good from a Labour perspective.
Plus as you say members voted for Starmer and Cameron.
It was union affiliated supporters who put Ed over the line in 2010 but he did at least offer a change of direction from New Labour unlike David and I doubt David would have won in 2015 either
On the article below the headline.. this winds me up.
I don't want the basic rate cut to 16%. I want the new NI levy reversed (before it becomes a trojan horse) and for the 20p/40p bands to go up in line with inflation each year, just as they used to.
If there's spare revenue, use it for that please.
Or just target NI for any and all cuts in future. Reduce Employers and Employees NI progressively until they're gone. They're literally a tax on jobs and on working.
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing states Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
Takes us back to the fundamental question- what is Brexit for?
For some of the 17 million, Brexit was absolutely about stopping people coming in and doing low-paid jobs, in the hope that pay for those jobs would rise without the jobs themselves vanishing as they became too expensive. For others, it was all about stopping people coming in, full stop. For those groups, this would be a betrayal of their vote.
For others, it was about letting people in, but in a controlled way. Or it was noting to do with migration, but something else again, maybe a specific Euroregulation that they saw as getting in the way of their business. Or democracy (though most people only complain about lack of democracy when some decision doesn't go their way). Or symbols. Or freeports. They'd be fine with this.
But once you dig down, it all becomes tricky. Any accommodation with the reality of an large multinational organisation on our doorstep will betray some slice of the Brexit vote. The only question is who does the government choose to betray.
Tricky if they can't really afford to lose any of them.
In big picture terms there were two different groups of Brexit voters. Those who were opposed to the EU on a point of principle, and those who were convinced that Brexit would improve their standard of living and the quality of public services.
We hear quite a lot from the first group on here, and they're understandably mostly content with Brexit. If they don't like Liz Truss' policy on migrant fruit pickers they can always vote for someone else at the next election.
The second group are seeing their living standards battered by inflation and the quality of public services smashed by the effects of the pandemic. They're approaching the position where they will oppose anything the government does, because they're not happy with the status quo and so they're not happy with the government.
I don't think that consistency on Brexit matters to this group, but they will be receptive to an argument that a government policy - migrant fruit pickers - is making things worse if opposition ties it to the cost of living crisis (by making the case it is holding down wage increases).
So I think a degree of rapprochement with the EU can be sold politically provided that it isn't binding on a future government, and that it is demonstrably going to improve the inflation and public services crises.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Failures
Truss over Sunak Johnson over Hunt (Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal) Duncan Smith over Clarke Corbyn over Smith Corbyn over Burnham Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
Truss over Sunak yet to be seen or decided.
Hunt would have failed to have got a majority against Corbyn and failed to get Brexit done (and Boris won most Tory MPs votes anyway).
May led members polling in 2017 but Leadsom might have been OK.
Clarke would have ripped the party apart over the Euro and EU and seen a surge to UKIP.
Corbyn granted but in 2017 he deprived the Tories of their majority which was good from a Labour perspective.
Plus as you say members voted for Starmer and Cameron.
It was union affiliated supporters who put Ed over the line in 2010 but he did at least offer a change of direction from New Labour unlike David and I doubt David would have won in 2015 either
The difference in thought is your responses, even for the Labour party, are all about what is best for the party. I want what is best for the country, and could not care less about either party.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Failures
Truss over Sunak Johnson over Hunt (Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal) Duncan Smith over Clarke Corbyn over Smith Corbyn over Burnham Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
A useful precis - in face there may be a thesis to be written on how extending the leadership suffrage to memberships has lead to the polarisation of British politics and the deserting of the centre, as the professional political classes (who know the need to work across Party lines and to find compromise) lost power to the amateurs.
That poll yesterday of councillors (Truss ahead, but not by much) fits the trend- the more the selectorate has knowledge of the candidates and personal skin in the game, the more they think that Johnson had to go and that Truss isn't the answer. Party members (by definition, the loyalest of the loyal) are much too likely to pick who they would like, not who the public would go for.
Notiecable also that Cameron/Davis and Stamer/RLB only happened when the parties were in a really bad way, with a big defeat or more already under their belts. Empirically, party members aren't good at this.
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Hang on, is that not a key objective companies are almost mandated to follow, if they can? By all means use it as an opportunity to search for a new deal (changing regularly with that kind of company is far, far cheaper) but why consider them scumbags for trying to make profits?
No, its not, that is a myth. Goodwill is a valuable asset for many firms.
Companies can try to make a long-term profit by providing a good, reliable service at a fair price and treating their customers and colleagues with respect, building loyalty amongst both.
Or companies can be scumbags that try to abuse their customers and colleagues to extract a transient profit, which will burn bridges and destroy goodwill towards them.
But gain a big bonus for someone in the short term...
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing states Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
I'd be interested to hear PB's principal Truss backer Bart Robert's take on this. For him having fruit left unpicked was just the market in action. So either Truss is bucking the market or his analysis is in tatters. (I actually tend to agree with Truss, who has realized that 'the market' actually spreads beyond our borders, but it'll be interesting to see how Bart attempts to escape the dilemma.)
Quite. If the Brexit treaty says everybody's left leg must be amputated and sent to Brussels, our domestic prosthetic left leg industry fills the gap. If all the Polish prosthetic left leg makers have gone home, wages rise to compensate.
Excuse me?
If the Brexit treaty says everybody's left leg must be amputated then I would want Parliament to scrap that clause and not amputate anybody's legs.
I wouldn't be the one insisting "international law" must be followed by continuing with the amputations.
I sense an analogy about to be throttled to within an inch of its life.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Good news. Well done to Johnson and Wallace, that can’t have been an easy deal.
Meanwhile, another enemy supply train heading to Kherson was taken out last night. The Russians have got no supply routes left into the city now, apart from the river. Starving them out starts now.
The Ukrainians are very bullish about taking it back by end of September. I hope they are right.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Interesting, that the deal was originally from last year.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Hang on, is that not a key objective companies are almost mandated to follow, if they can? By all means use it as an opportunity to search for a new deal (changing regularly with that kind of company is far, far cheaper) but why consider them scumbags for trying to make profits?
No, its not, that is a myth. Goodwill is a valuable asset for many firms.
Companies can try to make a long-term profit by providing a good, reliable service at a fair price and treating their customers and colleagues with respect, building loyalty amongst both.
Or companies can be scumbags that try to abuse their customers and colleagues to extract a transient profit, which will burn bridges and destroy goodwill towards them.
Indeed - a U.K. example is GiffGaff, who have built their brand around *not* doing all the funky tricks other mobile providers do.
In a wider context - when Boeing screwed up Starliner, NASA needed to purchase more flights to the space station. The only possible provider was SpaceX. Instead of price gouging, they quoted a price of exactly what they had charged for the previous tranche of flights, plus inflation as measured by the official US government figures.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Good news. Well done to Johnson and Wallace, that can’t have been an easy deal.
Meanwhile, another enemy supply train heading to Kherson was taken out last night. The Russians have got no supply routes left into the city now, apart from the river. Starving them out starts now.
Russia losing Kherson would be like the Americans losing Da Nang. It signals the wheels are falling off your military adventure.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Failures
Truss over Sunak Johnson over Hunt (Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal) Duncan Smith over Clarke Corbyn over Smith Corbyn over Burnham Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
Truss over Sunak yet to be seen or decided.
Hunt would have failed to have got a majority against Corbyn and failed to get Brexit done (and Boris won most Tory MPs votes anyway).
May led members polling in 2017 but Leadsom might have been OK.
Clarke would have ripped the party apart over the Euro and EU and seen a surge to UKIP.
Corbyn granted but in 2017 he deprived the Tories of their majority which was good from a Labour perspective.
Plus as you say members voted for Starmer and Cameron.
It was union affiliated supporters who put Ed over the line in 2010 but he did at least offer a change of direction from New Labour unlike David and I doubt David would have won in 2015 either
Ed M didn't do too badly in 2015; it was Clegg who did really badly, and gave Cameron his majority!
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Can the ships get past the Turks?
Not sure. Military ships are currently only allowed through the straits if they are returning to their home base. Obviously any new Ukrainian shops will have a home base on the Black Sea, because Ukraine has no other coastline, but it would suggest a loophole whereby the Russians could change the home base for all its Baltic fleet to Sevastopol, and demand transit through the straits, or for Ukraine to cede territory in Odesa to the US for a sovereign US naval base...
Will be interesting to see what the Turkish government decide to do.
On the article below the headline.. this winds me up.
I don't want the basic rate cut to 16%. I want the new NI levy reversed (before it becomes a trojan horse) and for the 20p/40p bands to go up in line with inflation each year, just as they used to.
If there's spare revenue, use it for that please.
Or just target NI for any and all cuts in future. Reduce Employers and Employees NI progressively until they're gone. They're literally a tax on jobs and on working.
Have checked the HMRC ready reckoner.
If there are the funds to reduce basic rate income tax by 4% AND to avoid the corporation tax rise, then instead of doing these, we could drop the main rate of Employees NI by 4% AND Employers NI by 4% from 24-25 onwards. Pretty close, anyway)
I would guess that this would have a better effect on growth and the amount of money in the pockets of those working.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Good news. Well done to Johnson and Wallace, that can’t have been an easy deal.
Meanwhile, another enemy supply train heading to Kherson was taken out last night. The Russians have got no supply routes left into the city now, apart from the river. Starving them out starts now.
The Ukrainians are very bullish about taking it back by end of September. I hope they are right.
Indeed. Getting the enemy back East of the river is a key strategic aim for the defenders. It makes life a lot easier for them, because the river constrains the enemy ‘s options for movement, so only a few bridges and the river itself need defending, rather than large amounts of territory that eventually leads all the way to Poland.
It might even allow for international peacekeepers to be stationed in the ‘safe’ West of the country, further freeing up Ukranian resources.
Starved of ammunition and supplies, the enemy are going to quickly be forced to retreat from Kherson. Fingers crossed!
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Interesting, that the deal was originally from last year.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
I will be very interested to read the inevitable books about the transformation of the Ukrainian military from 2014 till now.
People talk about transforming organisations. In this case, literally true.
Some of it came from the training and support provided by the US and U.K. post 2014. Especially moving to the Western model of senior, professional non-coms being the heart of the army. But there must have been a massive effort inside the Ukrainian military itself - the difference in performance is staggering.
Either everyone was fired, or the majority of senior officers decided to throw away their entire worldview…
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
I know that. Members choose the leader per Con rules and the party has a majority so that leader commands the Commons and is thus PM per Parliamentary rules. But those 2 rules together have produced an absurdity that is - on the deeper level - wrong.
Better would be if the vacancy arises in government - as here - the new leader is chosen by MPs only. These being the people *in* that Commons that the leader must command the confidence of in order to be PM. The members aspect is gratuitous and distorting in this case.
The problem we are grappling with here is not who elects the party leaders, but that the party leaders, and also the PM, have become too powerful within our political system, and so the identity of the party leader is too consequential.
It's Presidential politics which doesn't fit well with our Parliamentary system.
Regardless of whether Truss or Sunak is elected leader the Conservative Party will still have the same MPs, and have received votes from the same people at the last election. If the MPs were more in control of government, and the party as a whole in charge of internal party discipline, rather than the leader alone, then we would not have large policy swings dependent on the election of any one individual.
That bothers me more than who it is that elects that individual.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Good news. Well done to Johnson and Wallace, that can’t have been an easy deal.
Meanwhile, another enemy supply train heading to Kherson was taken out last night. The Russians have got no supply routes left into the city now, apart from the river. Starving them out starts now.
Russia losing Kherson would be like the Americans losing Da Nang. It signals the wheels are falling off your military adventure.
The suggestion that it won't help famers of affect the price of food is obvious drivel. It's also harsh on Liz - removing restrictions on immigrant labour is entirely consistent with here liberal libertarian ideology and isn't necessarily a mark of Remainerism. Nevertheless, it's shrewd politics from Rishi. How can Liz counter this blindside?
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
Seasonal work and non-seasonal work with permanent residence are very different things. This is what is missing in your analysis.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Failures
Truss over Sunak Johnson over Hunt (Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal) Duncan Smith over Clarke Corbyn over Smith Corbyn over Burnham Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
A useful precis - in face there may be a thesis to be written on how extending the leadership suffrage to memberships has lead to the polarisation of British politics and the deserting of the centre, as the professional political classes (who know the need to work across Party lines and to find compromise) lost power to the amateurs.
Taken as a whole, MP's seem to me no less bizarre than the party memberships/
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
Labour MP for Wigan visits picket line of striking workers in Wigan to have a chat with them and indicate support for them. Hardly earth-shattering. Good on her.
That's outside the Uncle Joe's Mint Balls factory. The Toffee Works. Wigan icon.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
Seasonal work and non-seasonal work with permanent residence are very different things. This is what is missing in your analysis.
Yes, I know that, although I'm not convinced that we have the capacity to ensure that the 'seasonal workers' don't just stay on until the next 'season'. But my main point was that wages are clearly not rising enough to attract local citizens to do these back-breaking jobs.
On the article below the headline.. this winds me up.
I don't want the basic rate cut to 16%. I want the new NI levy reversed (before it becomes a trojan horse) and for the 20p/40p bands to go up in line with inflation each year, just as they used to.
If there's spare revenue, use it for that please.
Or just target NI for any and all cuts in future. Reduce Employers and Employees NI progressively until they're gone. They're literally a tax on jobs and on working.
Have checked the HMRC ready reckoner.
If there are the funds to reduce basic rate income tax by 4% AND to avoid the corporation tax rise, then instead of doing these, we could drop the main rate of Employees NI by 4% AND Employers NI by 4% from 24-25 onwards. Pretty close, anyway)
I would guess that this would have a better effect on growth and the amount of money in the pockets of those working.
Um no -
1p Income tax = £5,250m in Government income 1p Employee NI = £4,050m in Government income 1p Employer NI = £7,450m in Government income
Corporation tax at 1p = £2,400m means that you need 3p of that to cover less than 1p of Employer NI
Also Rishi isn't talking about Corporation Tax and Income tax unless I've missed something he still wants the Corporation tax increases as he views low Corporation tax = low incentive for companies to invest.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
And if it doesn't resume they will feel a vast and agonising sense of having nothing to eat. It's not like they are queueing up for the vacant jobs
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
The issue is that few indigenous workers want to pick fruit on farms.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Interesting, that the deal was originally from last year.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
I will be very interested to read the inevitable books about the transformation of the Ukrainian military from 2014 till now.
People talk about transforming organisations. In this case, literally true.
Some of it came from the training and support provided by the US and U.K. post 2014. Especially moving to the Western model of senior, professional non-coms being the heart of the army. But there must have been a massive effort inside the Ukrainian military itself - the difference in performance is staggering.
Either everyone was fired, or the majority of senior officers decided to throw away their entire worldview…
Yes, it’s been quite the transformation in only a few years. They’ve been planning for this defence of their country since 2014.
The senior officers will have been brought up under the Soviet doctrine, and all reports from Ukraine say they’re now very much working to NATO doctrine - a change that has made quite the difference in this conflict.
As you say, books will be written, and I’ll be buying them.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
We're never going to get away from this Remainsplaining, are we?
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Interesting, that the deal was originally from last year.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
I will be very interested to read the inevitable books about the transformation of the Ukrainian military from 2014 till now.
People talk about transforming organisations. In this case, literally true.
Some of it came from the training and support provided by the US and U.K. post 2014. Especially moving to the Western model of senior, professional non-coms being the heart of the army. But there must have been a massive effort inside the Ukrainian military itself - the difference in performance is staggering.
Either everyone was fired, or the majority of senior officers decided to throw away their entire worldview…
Like most, I was expecting a Russian walkover. I'm very pleased to have been proved wrong.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
I've put a flat cap on my flat cap, for the occasion.
I will also be rioting against the local government reorganisation of 1974, but as I'm working from home in a somewhat rural location, it's possible no one will really notice.
Go on, push over a dry stone wall!
Dunno how you there southerners make 'em, but round 'ere if yer push a dry stone wall yer'll like as not end arse over tit and look a reet wazzock. They're made proper up 'ere.
Curiously, if the Redwall voters want a reduction in immigrant Labour they might now be forced to vote for arch-Remainer Keir Starmer. Starmer will crave Redwall support much more than he will worry about the profits of British agriculture. He's scrapped much of Labour's pro-EU baggage, so it'll be no wrench for him to curtail free movement, unlike Truss who will be ideologically bound to encourage it.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
Seasonal work and non-seasonal work with permanent residence are very different things. This is what is missing in your analysis.
Yes, I know that, although I'm not convinced that we have the capacity to ensure that the 'seasonal workers' don't just stay on until the next 'season'. But my main point was that wages are clearly not rising enough to attract local citizens to do these back-breaking jobs.
It’s not just wages and difficult work: who is free to do a job that only lasts for three months? Maybe locals who happen to have just lost their job - but they have housing benefit and unemployment benefit, so why bother? Seasonal workers from abroad may come from places where jobs are hard to come by at all. And, of course, seasonal workers are not entitled to benefits, often live in caravans, and go home. So locals get less upset about them - and wouldn’t see Truss’s policy as a return of FoM at all.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
The number of people who wanted zero migration was much, much lower than those who wanted it controlled.
Again, for the overwhelming majority of people permanent labour is by far the greater issue. Seasonal wouldn't bother very many people proportionately.
Our regular reminder that Betfair has two markets which, with only a month to go, should be more or less the same but right now Rishi is half a point bigger. Check both before you back or lay (and the books too, who may boost their prices).
Betfair next prime minister 1.11 Liz Truss 90% 10.5 Rishi Sunak 10%
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
And if it doesn't resume they will feel a vast and agonising sense of having nothing to eat. It's not like they are queueing up for the vacant jobs
Why? Will nobody be working bringing in imports?
The entire UK agriculture sector could die [it won't, and I wouldn't desire that] and we'd still have food to eat.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
Seasonal work and non-seasonal work with permanent residence are very different things. This is what is missing in your analysis.
Yes, I know that, although I'm not convinced that we have the capacity to ensure that the 'seasonal workers' don't just stay on until the next 'season'. But my main point was that wages are clearly not rising enough to attract local citizens to do these back-breaking jobs.
Why would they have risen sufficient to attract locals to do them, when there has never been a period whereby non-locals have been available?
You have to actually change the supply if you want a supply and demand-driven change - but as of yet there's been no change to seasonal workers AFAIK and there probably never will be.
On the article below the headline.. this winds me up.
I don't want the basic rate cut to 16%. I want the new NI levy reversed (before it becomes a trojan horse) and for the 20p/40p bands to go up in line with inflation each year, just as they used to.
If there's spare revenue, use it for that please.
Or just target NI for any and all cuts in future. Reduce Employers and Employees NI progressively until they're gone. They're literally a tax on jobs and on working.
Have checked the HMRC ready reckoner.
If there are the funds to reduce basic rate income tax by 4% AND to avoid the corporation tax rise, then instead of doing these, we could drop the main rate of Employees NI by 4% AND Employers NI by 4% from 24-25 onwards. Pretty close, anyway)
I would guess that this would have a better effect on growth and the amount of money in the pockets of those working.
Um no -
1p Income tax = £5,250m in Government income 1p Employee NI = £4,050m in Government income 1p Employer NI = £7,450m in Government income
Corporation tax at 1p = £2,400m means that you need 3p of that to cover less than 1p of Employer NI
Also Rishi isn't talking about Corporation Tax and Income tax unless I've missed something he still wants the Corporation tax increases as he views low Corporation tax = low incentive for companies to invest.
I was looking at the year later and onwards.
1p income tax £6400 per penny and £6350 per penny in 24/25 and 25/26 = 25.6 bn and 25.4 bn for 4p 1p Employee NI - 4100 and 4250 in 24/25 and 25/26. 4p on that is 16.4bn and 17bn 1p Employer NI - 7,600 and 7850. 4p is 30.4 and 31.4 bn Corp tax in 24/25 and 25/26 = 3,200 and 3,400 = 19.2bn and 20.4bn in 24/25 and 25/26
I had thought he'd suddenly turned to saying he'd also abort the corporation tax rise in a recent U-turn? I could be wrong.
But I made it 25.6+19.2 = 44.8 bn in 24/25 and 25.4+20.4 = 45.8bn in 25/26 for income tax and corporation tax. The Employers and Employees NI would come out to 30.4+16.4 = 46.8bn in 24/25 and 17.0+31.4 = 48.4 bn in 25/26.
Thus the "pretty close" - it came to 44.8bn for income tax/corporation tax versus 46.8bn for the double NI in 24/25, and 45.8 bn in income tax/corporation tax versus 48.4bn in the double NI in 25/26.
Which is within 2-3 billion each time, and to be honest, I'd expect an error margin probably greater than that in the ready reckoner.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Interesting, that the deal was originally from last year.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
I will be very interested to read the inevitable books about the transformation of the Ukrainian military from 2014 till now.
People talk about transforming organisations. In this case, literally true.
Some of it came from the training and support provided by the US and U.K. post 2014. Especially moving to the Western model of senior, professional non-coms being the heart of the army. But there must have been a massive effort inside the Ukrainian military itself - the difference in performance is staggering.
Either everyone was fired, or the majority of senior officers decided to throw away their entire worldview…
Like most, I was expecting a Russian walkover. I'm very pleased to have been proved wrong.
The Russians were expecting a Russian walkover too! Remember the initial invasion force heading for Kiev had No.1 uniforms in their tanks, ready for the parade in the hastily-renamed Independence Square.
I was far from sure it would be a walkover, because 1. I know a lot of Ukranians, and 2. There were dozens of NATO flights per day heading for Ukraine in the weeks leading up to the invasion. There were a lot of Western weapons heading to the defenders, and a lot of Ukranians had been trained to use them.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
The number of people who wanted zero migration was much, much lower than those who wanted it controlled.
Again, for the overwhelming majority of people permanent labour is by far the greater issue. Seasonal wouldn't bother very many people proportionately.
Consider the experience of a working class friend of mine - he saw over a number of years a variety of skilled jobs reduced to minimum wage jobs. In the end he left the country - for Australia…
Globalisation meant being fucked over for him. Repeatedly.
I have, at the same time, done very nicely out of globalisation.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
We're never going to get away from this Remainsplaining, are we?
When Liz cuts the red ribbon on Boston High Street, ushering in all those immigrant workers 'to ably assist us with our chronic labour shortage' I'm sure the pavements will be lined with locals throwing confetti.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Interesting, that the deal was originally from last year.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
I will be very interested to read the inevitable books about the transformation of the Ukrainian military from 2014 till now.
People talk about transforming organisations. In this case, literally true.
Some of it came from the training and support provided by the US and U.K. post 2014. Especially moving to the Western model of senior, professional non-coms being the heart of the army. But there must have been a massive effort inside the Ukrainian military itself - the difference in performance is staggering.
Either everyone was fired, or the majority of senior officers decided to throw away their entire worldview…
Like most, I was expecting a Russian walkover. I'm very pleased to have been proved wrong.
The Russians were expecting a Russian walkover too! Remember the initial invasion force heading for Kiev had No.1 uniforms in their tanks, ready for the parade in the hastily-renamed Independence Square.
I was far from sure it would be a walkover, because 1. I know a lot of Ukranians, and 2. There were dozens of NATO flights per day heading for Ukraine in the weeks leading up to the invasion. There were a lot of Western weapons heading to the defenders, and a lot of Ukranians had been trained to use them.
When the story ids written, I reckon western intelligence will have proved just as important as the weapons in that first week. Although many in the Ukrainian government allegedly did not believe Russia would attack, it seems many in the military were prepared - and knew much of Russia's plan. Knowing the enemy's intentions must have been worth a thousand NLAWs in that pivotal week.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
Do you know any of these people?
I don't need to. The Leavers have been the voice of the unheard and champion of their cause for years. They got the message across load and clear.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
Seasonal work and non-seasonal work with permanent residence are very different things. This is what is missing in your analysis.
Yes, I know that, although I'm not convinced that we have the capacity to ensure that the 'seasonal workers' don't just stay on until the next 'season'. But my main point was that wages are clearly not rising enough to attract local citizens to do these back-breaking jobs.
They're not eligible for our plethora of in-working benefits, no working tax credit, no child tax credits, no housing benefits, no child benefit and they will need to pay (or have their employer pay) the NHS access charge. It is nothing like free movement.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
And if it doesn't resume they will feel a vast and agonising sense of having nothing to eat. It's not like they are queueing up for the vacant jobs
Why? Will nobody be working bringing in imports?
The entire UK agriculture sector could die [it won't, and I wouldn't desire that] and we'd still have food to eat.
You could say that about any sector. If we closed all our medical schools, we'd import all our doctors. If we closed our car industry, we'd import cars (and that has been tested). And if we ignore our steadily deteriorating balance of payments and security of supply, as governments have often done, life would indeed go on.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Interesting, that the deal was originally from last year.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
I will be very interested to read the inevitable books about the transformation of the Ukrainian military from 2014 till now.
People talk about transforming organisations. In this case, literally true.
Some of it came from the training and support provided by the US and U.K. post 2014. Especially moving to the Western model of senior, professional non-coms being the heart of the army. But there must have been a massive effort inside the Ukrainian military itself - the difference in performance is staggering.
Either everyone was fired, or the majority of senior officers decided to throw away their entire worldview…
Like most, I was expecting a Russian walkover. I'm very pleased to have been proved wrong.
The Russians were expecting a Russian walkover too! Remember the initial invasion force heading for Kiev had No.1 uniforms in their tanks, ready for the parade in the hastily-renamed Independence Square.
I was far from sure it would be a walkover, because 1. I know a lot of Ukranians, and 2. There were dozens of NATO flights per day heading for Ukraine in the weeks leading up to the invasion. There were a lot of Western weapons heading to the defenders, and a lot of Ukranians had been trained to use them.
When the story ids written, I reckon western intelligence will have proved just as important as the weapons in that first week. Although many in the Ukrainian government allegedly did not believe Russia would attack, it seems many in the military were prepared - and knew much of Russia's plan. Knowing the enemy's intentions must have been worth a thousand NLAWs in that pivotal week.
If the reports that many Ukrainians were approached by the Russians and played along, on the advice of the Ukrainian government, that would explain a chunk of the gap in expectations.
The Russians may have thought they had the whole country compromised and ready to fall. The Ukrainians would have had a very good idea about what was about to happen and when…
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
Do you know any of these people?
I don't need to. The Leavers have been the voice of the unheard and champion of their cause for years. They got the message across load and clear.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
Do you know any of these people?
I don't need to. The Leavers have been the voice of the unheard and champion of their cause for years. They got the message across load and clear.
But if the unheard are inaudible how do they know what the message was? How do you?
I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on. 10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Interesting, that the deal was originally from last year.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
I will be very interested to read the inevitable books about the transformation of the Ukrainian military from 2014 till now.
People talk about transforming organisations. In this case, literally true.
Some of it came from the training and support provided by the US and U.K. post 2014. Especially moving to the Western model of senior, professional non-coms being the heart of the army. But there must have been a massive effort inside the Ukrainian military itself - the difference in performance is staggering.
Either everyone was fired, or the majority of senior officers decided to throw away their entire worldview…
Like most, I was expecting a Russian walkover. I'm very pleased to have been proved wrong.
The Russians were expecting a Russian walkover too! Remember the initial invasion force heading for Kiev had No.1 uniforms in their tanks, ready for the parade in the hastily-renamed Independence Square.
I was far from sure it would be a walkover, because 1. I know a lot of Ukranians, and 2. There were dozens of NATO flights per day heading for Ukraine in the weeks leading up to the invasion. There were a lot of Western weapons heading to the defenders, and a lot of Ukranians had been trained to use them.
When the story ids written, I reckon western intelligence will have proved just as important as the weapons in that first week. Although many in the Ukrainian government allegedly did not believe Russia would attack, it seems many in the military were prepared - and knew much of Russia's plan. Knowing the enemy's intentions must have been worth a thousand NLAWs in that pivotal week.
Yes, good point. The Ukranians were - and still are - getting some serious intelligence. There were likely a lot of people in London and Washington very keen to know what Putin was up to, and happy to share it.
There’s still a US drone in the Black Sea every day, and a NATO AWACS in Poland and Romania, alongside many other Western airbourne assets ready to intercept any escalation of the conflict into NATO territory.
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
Do you know any of these people?
I don't need to. The Leavers have been the voice of the unheard and champion of their cause for years. They got the message across load and clear.
Apparently you weren't listening.
Rishi reiterated it today. He said that a return to imported labour is anti-Brexit.
Team Sunak do appear to be totally losing their minds, the increasingly unhinged blue-on-blue attack pieces are most unedifying.
The Observer had a good piece about Sunak's team running a glossy General Election-style, social media-centric campaign which was completely unsuited to the actual electorate in this battle.
But the interesting corollary is that Truss's advisors do appear to be actually good. Not "good" as in "smart people who'll make a brilliant job of running the country", but as in "running a really clever campaign". They're managing to very effectively skewer Sunak while making Truss not seem too insane. Putting out the notion that Sunak is a "doomster" is a great example of this - it's a word that will stick with people and immediately forces him onto the back foot.
Third brother in the Long Hand family - MLRS MARS II from Germany - has arrived in Ukraine. Thank you to Germany and personally to my colleague #DefenceMinister Christine Lambrecht for these systems. Our artillerymen salute our German partners! https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1554054634746126337
The voters in Boston (and many other places) voted for Brexit because they wanted to reverse the trend of their town being filled by workers from Eastern Europe employed to pick fruit and other low-wage work. Now Truss has promised a major expansion of both the number of unskilled seasonal workers and the length of time they are allowed to stay. These new workers may or may not be from Eastern Europe, but that hardly matters. This isn't what the Bostonites voted for, is it? I thought the intention was to raise wages enough to attract local, 'indigenous' workers to the farms and elsewhere? Something's not right.
We voted for Parliament to control it.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
A misreading: these people wanted immigrant labour to cease entirely. If it resumes they will feel a vast and agonizing sense of betrayal, regardless of whether it's the UK government or the EU that wields the (never-to-be-used) veto.
We're never going to get away from this Remainsplaining, are we?
When Liz cuts the red ribbon on Boston High Street, ushering in all those immigrant workers 'to ably assist us with our chronic labour shortage' I'm sure the pavements will be lined with locals throwing confetti.
Long story to come, I suspect, but the poor child murdered in Boston the other day had a Lithuanian name as does the chap accused of her murder.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
Cheers. Had £2 in my account - and they won't let me deposit any more for some reason.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
I know that. Members choose the leader per Con rules and the party has a majority so that leader commands the Commons and is thus PM per Parliamentary rules. But those 2 rules together have produced an absurdity that is - on the deeper level - wrong.
Better would be if the vacancy arises in government - as here - the new leader is chosen by MPs only. These being the people *in* that Commons that the leader must command the confidence of in order to be PM. The members aspect is gratuitous and distorting in this case.
The problem we are grappling with here is not who elects the party leaders, but that the party leaders, and also the PM, have become too powerful within our political system, and so the identity of the party leader is too consequential.
It's Presidential politics which doesn't fit well with our Parliamentary system.
Regardless of whether Truss or Sunak is elected leader the Conservative Party will still have the same MPs, and have received votes from the same people at the last election. If the MPs were more in control of government, and the party as a whole in charge of internal party discipline, rather than the leader alone, then we would not have large policy swings dependent on the election of any one individual.
That bothers me more than who it is that elects that individual.
I agree but the points are linked. If PMs weren't so hegemonic it wouldn't feel so wrong having Truss foisted on us by 100k Con members. Or 65% of them rather.
I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
Good call. I've had a nibble, with an odds boost to boot.
Comments
For some of the 17 million, Brexit was absolutely about stopping people coming in and doing low-paid jobs, in the hope that pay for those jobs would rise without the jobs themselves vanishing as they became too expensive. For others, it was all about stopping people coming in, full stop. For those groups, this would be a betrayal of their vote.
For others, it was about letting people in, but in a controlled way. Or it was noting to do with migration, but something else again, maybe a specific Euroregulation that they saw as getting in the way of their business. Or democracy (though most people only complain about lack of democracy when some decision doesn't go their way). Or symbols. Or freeports. They'd be fine with this.
But once you dig down, it all becomes tricky. Any accommodation with the reality of an large multinational organisation on our doorstep will betray some slice of the Brexit vote. The only question is who does the government choose to betray.
Tricky if they can't really afford to lose any of them.
We are a representative not a direct democracy
However Ken Clarke in 2001 clearly did not have the support of the voluntary party, nor at present does Sunak
There is far more logic though for seasonal picking visas where skilled people come in for a couple of months to do the work, then can return next season, than there is for people earning minimum wage living here permanently though.
The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
⚡️Ambassador: UK to hand over 2 mine countermeasures ships to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.K. Vadym Prystaiko told Suspilne media that a group of naval sailors is already going through training to operate the ships, and the U.K. might transfer more of them later on.
10:28 AM · Aug 1, 2022
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1554036343000469505
Worth recalling that the Ukrainians scuttled their naval flagship, which was docked in Mykolaiv for repairs, early in the war for fear that it would fall into the hands of the Russians. So this move reflects a high-level of confidence in Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
Truss over Sunak
Johnson over Hunt
(Leadsom would have beaten May bar the withdrawal)
Duncan Smith over Clarke
Corbyn over Smith
Corbyn over Burnham
Ed over David (not solely members but it was the member who dunnit)
Successes
Cameron over Davis
Starmer over Long-Bailey
It works of course, but it does not work fine, it generally picks either a more extreme candidate or one who promises stuff thats undeliverable. We are stuck with it though, no way the members give up their power.
Labour MP for Wigan visits picket line of striking workers in Wigan to have a chat with them and indicate support for them. Hardly earth-shattering. Good on her.
Johnson over Hunt was a success, as will be Truss over Sunak.
Better would be if the vacancy arises in government - as here - the new leader is chosen by MPs only. These being the people *in* that Commons that the leader must command the confidence of in order to be PM. The members aspect is gratuitous and distorting in this case.
Got to get back the losses from Gavin's expensive tickets to the footy.
My more general point is that Ofcom has, once again, taken their eye off the ball and BT are running riot.
Companies can try to make a long-term profit by providing a good, reliable service at a fair price and treating their customers and colleagues with respect, building loyalty amongst both.
Or companies can be scumbags that try to abuse their customers and colleagues to extract a transient profit, which will burn bridges and destroy goodwill towards them.
If the Brexit treaty says everybody's left leg must be amputated then I would want Parliament to scrap that clause and not amputate anybody's legs.
I wouldn't be the one insisting "international law" must be followed by continuing with the amputations.
Meanwhile, another enemy supply train heading to Kherson was taken out last night. The Russians have got no supply routes left into the city now, apart from the river. Starving them out starts now.
Hunt would have failed to have got a majority against Corbyn and failed to get Brexit done (and Boris won most Tory MPs votes anyway).
May led members polling in 2017 but Leadsom might have been OK.
Clarke would have ripped the party apart over the Euro and EU and seen a surge to UKIP.
Corbyn granted but in 2017 he deprived the Tories of their majority which was good from a Labour perspective.
Plus as you say members voted for Starmer and Cameron.
It was union affiliated supporters who put Ed over the line in 2010 but he did at least offer a change of direction from New Labour unlike David and I doubt David would have won in 2015 either
Reduce Employers and Employees NI progressively until they're gone. They're literally a tax on jobs and on working.
We hear quite a lot from the first group on here, and they're understandably mostly content with Brexit. If they don't like Liz Truss' policy on migrant fruit pickers they can always vote for someone else at the next election.
The second group are seeing their living standards battered by inflation and the quality of public services smashed by the effects of the pandemic. They're approaching the position where they will oppose anything the government does, because they're not happy with the status quo and so they're not happy with the government.
I don't think that consistency on Brexit matters to this group, but they will be receptive to an argument that a government policy - migrant fruit pickers - is making things worse if opposition ties it to the cost of living crisis (by making the case it is holding down wage increases).
So I think a degree of rapprochement with the EU can be sold politically provided that it isn't binding on a future government, and that it is demonstrably going to improve the inflation and public services crises.
Note the date - June 2021
Notiecable also that Cameron/Davis and Stamer/RLB only happened when the parties were in a really bad way, with a big defeat or more already under their belts. Empirically, party members aren't good at this.
/cynic
Time to cut my toenails.
The British have really been very good at supporting Ukraine in recent years, and a lot of it went under the radar. Lots of credit due to everyone involved.
In a wider context - when Boeing screwed up Starliner, NASA needed to purchase more flights to the space station. The only possible provider was SpaceX. Instead of price gouging, they quoted a price of exactly what they had charged for the previous tranche of flights, plus inflation as measured by the official US government figures.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1554020545661911040?s=20&t=RA8ZYvSVPXF8FkD4mY78Aw
Will be interesting to see what the Turkish government decide to do.
If there are the funds to reduce basic rate income tax by 4% AND to avoid the corporation tax rise, then instead of doing these, we could drop the main rate of Employees NI by 4% AND Employers NI by 4% from 24-25 onwards. Pretty close, anyway)
I would guess that this would have a better effect on growth and the amount of money in the pockets of those working.
It might even allow for international peacekeepers to be stationed in the ‘safe’ West of the country, further freeing up Ukranian resources.
Starved of ammunition and supplies, the enemy are going to quickly be forced to retreat from Kherson. Fingers crossed!
People talk about transforming organisations. In this case, literally true.
Some of it came from the training and support provided by the US and U.K. post 2014. Especially moving to the Western model of senior, professional non-coms being the heart of the army. But there must have been a massive effort inside the Ukrainian military itself - the difference in performance is staggering.
Either everyone was fired, or the majority of senior officers decided to throw away their entire worldview…
One senior Tory MP says: “Tory prime ministers usually end upsetting the Right whom they needed to get in. It will be the same this time.”
Won't be easy. We shall see
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1554021993812467712?s=20&t=jLFLJIKOX-4ia04SmouE4w
It's Presidential politics which doesn't fit well with our Parliamentary system.
Regardless of whether Truss or Sunak is elected leader the Conservative Party will still have the same MPs, and have received votes from the same people at the last election. If the MPs were more in control of government, and the party as a whole in charge of internal party discipline, rather than the leader alone, then we would not have large policy swings dependent on the election of any one individual.
That bothers me more than who it is that elects that individual.
If Parliament ends up with a system whereby low-paid permanent workers aren't given free movement, but low-paid seasonal workers are allowed in (which has always happened, even pre-EU AFAIK) then that would be a "controlled" system.
For most people it is permanent labour that matters far more than seasonal.
And while Truss can't say it (yet) she at least recognises it.
The Toffee Works. Wigan icon.
1p Income tax = £5,250m in Government income
1p Employee NI = £4,050m in Government income
1p Employer NI = £7,450m in Government income
Corporation tax at 1p = £2,400m means that you need 3p of that to cover less than 1p of Employer NI
Also Rishi isn't talking about Corporation Tax and Income tax unless I've missed something he still wants the Corporation tax increases as he views low Corporation tax = low incentive for companies to invest.
The senior officers will have been brought up under the Soviet doctrine, and all reports from Ukraine say they’re now very much working to NATO doctrine - a change that has made quite the difference in this conflict.
As you say, books will be written, and I’ll be buying them.
Again, for the overwhelming majority of people permanent labour is by far the greater issue. Seasonal wouldn't bother very many people proportionately.
Betfair next prime minister
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
10.5 Rishi Sunak 10%
Next Conservative leader
1.1 Liz Truss 91%
11 Rishi Sunak 9%
The entire UK agriculture sector could die [it won't, and I wouldn't desire that] and we'd still have food to eat.
You have to actually change the supply if you want a supply and demand-driven change - but as of yet there's been no change to seasonal workers AFAIK and there probably never will be.
1p income tax £6400 per penny and £6350 per penny in 24/25 and 25/26 = 25.6 bn and 25.4 bn for 4p
1p Employee NI - 4100 and 4250 in 24/25 and 25/26. 4p on that is 16.4bn and 17bn
1p Employer NI - 7,600 and 7850. 4p is 30.4 and 31.4 bn
Corp tax in 24/25 and 25/26 = 3,200 and 3,400 = 19.2bn and 20.4bn in 24/25 and 25/26
I had thought he'd suddenly turned to saying he'd also abort the corporation tax rise in a recent U-turn? I could be wrong.
But I made it 25.6+19.2 = 44.8 bn in 24/25 and 25.4+20.4 = 45.8bn in 25/26 for income tax and corporation tax.
The Employers and Employees NI would come out to 30.4+16.4 = 46.8bn in 24/25 and 17.0+31.4 = 48.4 bn in 25/26.
Thus the "pretty close" - it came to 44.8bn for income tax/corporation tax versus 46.8bn for the double NI in 24/25, and 45.8 bn in income tax/corporation tax versus 48.4bn in the double NI in 25/26.
Which is within 2-3 billion each time, and to be honest, I'd expect an error margin probably greater than that in the ready reckoner.
EDIT: I took the ready reckoner from here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1082493/Direct_Effects_of_Illustrative_Tax_Changes_June_22_ODS.ods
I was far from sure it would be a walkover, because 1. I know a lot of Ukranians, and 2. There were dozens of NATO flights per day heading for Ukraine in the weeks leading up to the invasion. There were a lot of Western weapons heading to the defenders, and a lot of Ukranians had been trained to use them.
Globalisation meant being fucked over for him. Repeatedly.
I have, at the same time, done very nicely out of globalisation.
BREXIT in a nutshell, really.
The Russians may have thought they had the whole country compromised and ready to fall. The Ukrainians would have had a very good idea about what was about to happen and when…
have you ever been to Boston?
I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
There’s still a US drone in the Black Sea every day, and a NATO AWACS in Poland and Romania, alongside many other Western airbourne assets ready to intercept any escalation of the conflict into NATO territory.
But the interesting corollary is that Truss's advisors do appear to be actually good. Not "good" as in "smart people who'll make a brilliant job of running the country", but as in "running a really clever campaign". They're managing to very effectively skewer Sunak while making Truss not seem too insane. Putting out the notion that Sunak is a "doomster" is a great example of this - it's a word that will stick with people and immediately forces him onto the back foot.
Thank you to Germany and personally to my colleague #DefenceMinister Christine Lambrecht for these systems.
Our artillerymen salute our German partners!
https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1554054634746126337