Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Is Biden going to run again? – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    removing the limit makes sense but putting it on pensions is unfair in the sense that pension tax relief (ie when you are saving for a pension in working life) only relieves income tax not NI - so if you are now drawing a pension and were taxed NI you would be taxed NI twice on the same income. It would become very tax inefficient to save for a pension then
    Reading back my coment I wasn't clear. Apologies.

    I didn't actually say put it on pensions. Indeed, I got pulled up the other day when we were discussing this because I explicitly excluded pensions and other unearned income.

    What I said was put it on pensioners. I was referring to the fact that, currently, anyone past pension age doesn't pay NI if they continue to work. Hence the 'earned income' comment.

    All work should attract the same rates of taxation including NI irrespective of the age of the worker.
    I agree with what you’re saying here.
    Although I would compensate for that (effective) increase by increasing the rates at which income tax cuts in.

    Personally I do think income/NI tax rates are at an effective maximum, they should be lower while wealth taxes should be higher.
    I do think the time has come for some form of wealth tax or higher rate for the highly paid

    The problem with all these seemingly sensible ideas is in the detail and who is brave enough to put forward a clear policy but does not scare away wealth creators
    I don’t want to tax income more highly than it is at present.

    I do want a relatively modest form of wealth tax.

    The UK should “be more Swiss”, it is probably the most successful economy in the world, all things considered.
    I would not disagree
    I also agree with 'be more Swiss', but we must look at what Switzerland did in the past (and probably the distant past at that) to emulate its success, not what it does now.
    Federalism. (Not 'Devolution').
    Republicanism.
    Part of the EU customs zone (I forget the precise details).
    There is plenty for all political persuasions to cherry pick. National service. Universal gun ownership. But basically, an incredibly stable, democratic state, with people prepared to defend it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    RobD said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    All of them?
    I fear we will soon need Horsebattery4.

    We'd soon have to move up (topically, as it happens) to CorrectHorseRegiment.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    removing the limit makes sense but putting it on pensions is unfair in the sense that pension tax relief (ie when you are saving for a pension in working life) only relieves income tax not NI - so if you are now drawing a pension and were taxed NI you would be taxed NI twice on the same income. It would become very tax inefficient to save for a pension then
    Reading back my coment I wasn't clear. Apologies.

    I didn't actually say put it on pensions. Indeed, I got pulled up the other day when we were discussing this because I explicitly excluded pensions and other unearned income.

    What I said was put it on pensioners. I was referring to the fact that, currently, anyone past pension age doesn't pay NI if they continue to work. Hence the 'earned income' comment.

    All work should attract the same rates of taxation including NI irrespective of the age of the worker.
    I agree with what you’re saying here.
    Although I would compensate for that (effective) increase by increasing the rates at which income tax cuts in.

    Personally I do think income/NI tax rates are at an effective maximum, they should be lower while wealth taxes should be higher.
    I do think the time has come for some form of wealth tax or higher rate for the highly paid

    The problem with all these seemingly sensible ideas is in the detail and who is brave enough to put forward a clear policy but does not scare away wealth creators
    I don’t want to tax income more highly than it is at present.

    I do want a relatively modest form of wealth tax.

    The UK should “be more Swiss”, it is probably the most successful economy in the world, all things considered.
    I would not disagree
    I also agree with 'be more Swiss', but we must look at what Switzerland did in the past (and probably the distant past at that) to emulate its success, not what it does now.
    Federalism. (Not 'Devolution').
    Republicanism.
    Part of the EU customs zone (I forget the precise details).
    There is plenty for all political persuasions to cherry pick. National service. Universal gun ownership. But basically, an incredibly stable, democratic state, with people prepared to defend it.
    Ooh yes, assault rifles in a nuclear bunker in every home.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Perhaps you want a Logan’s run solution?
  • Well said some of the responses, others responded as I thought they would. No surprise.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    They do have to live with the consequences of the oldies' decisions for longer. Maybe a formula of weighting the vote by a factor of (100-x) where x is the age in calendar years?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549
    edited September 2022
    5.1 Billion people watched the Queen’s Funeral, 63% of the worlds population #queensfuneral #QueenElizabethII #QueenElizabeth


    https://twitter.com/hrh_william_/status/1571909222593593344?s=46&t=1sQGLd8s3PnQyzkPKr2L2w
    This is a monstrous exaggeration (this is a parody account) - but that is quite an astounding display of soft power even so. All those Union flags on The Mall
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,567
    One for SeanT - Russian cultural vandalism.

    https://twitter.com/rien4djri/status/1571959558779863040
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    SeanT said:

    5.1 Billion people watched the Queen’s Funeral, 63% of the worlds population #queensfuneral #QueenElizabethII #QueenElizabeth


    https://twitter.com/hrh_william_/status/1571909222593593344?s=46&t=1sQGLd8s3PnQyzkPKr2L2w

    Even if that is a monstrous exaggeration, that is quite an astounding display of soft power. All those Union flags on The Mall

    Hmm. No reference, documentation or evidence.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    Carnyx said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    They do have to live with the consequences of the oldies' decisions for longer. Maybe a formula of weighting the vote by a factor of (100-x) where x is the age in calendar years?
    Would the Brexit vote have been 52-48 the other way with that formula?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Carnyx said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    They do have to live with the consequences of the oldies' decisions for longer. Maybe a formula of weighting the vote by a factor of (100-x) where x is the age in calendar years?
    Would the Brexit vote have been 52-48 the other way with that formula?
    Hadn't thought of that, actually. But you could well be right.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    edited September 2022
    Cookie said:

    Thank goodness we are back to normal tomorrow. CoL has not gone away

    The CoL is a very boring crisis.
    That's not to deny its importance. But philosophically "shit, gas has gone up fourteen-fold, rendering it and everything it is used for" us not particularly philosophically interesting, and neither if the short term answers - "suck it up" or "whack it on the credit card ajd let the kids pay for it" are particularly satisfying. (The long term answers, mind, about how we move away from reliance on fossil fuels and the maniacs who sell them, is both interesting and satisfying.)
    And the news from Ukraine is almost all awful, even if notably less awful than when it appeared Ukraine would be overrun and enslaved.
    I must admit I have rather enjoyed the philosphical musings on the nature of Britishness, identity and sovereignty of the ladt ten days, along with the human drama of The Queue. I have surprised myself.
    I wouldn't want to keep it up for ever - ten days or so is about right - but in pure news terms it has been a welcome diversion.
    I'm surprised at myself here. Royal weddings are shit. But it turns out royal funerals are brilliant.
    It has been a welcome diversion in that sense yes, we return to the fetid toilet bowl am morgen.
    Back to the i reckon, you reckon and the nonsense of polls, PMQs et al
    Most of all its back to the sham breathless earnestness of them all. The offence taken, the deliberate content ripping of every word said, the misrepresentation of everything for polling advantage. Yay!
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,945
    Cicero said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
    Is that the bit where Samuel L Jackson shoots someone after?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549
    Carnyx said:

    SeanT said:

    5.1 Billion people watched the Queen’s Funeral, 63% of the worlds population #queensfuneral #QueenElizabethII #QueenElizabeth


    https://twitter.com/hrh_william_/status/1571909222593593344?s=46&t=1sQGLd8s3PnQyzkPKr2L2w

    Even if that is a monstrous exaggeration, that is quite an astounding display of soft power. All those Union flags on The Mall

    Hmm. No reference, documentation or evidence.
    I should have been clearer: this is a joke account

    But the fact it is credibly made shows the impact of this event. FWIW I reckon it’s more like 1-2bn will watch parts of the ceremony
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Well said some of the responses, others responded as I thought they would. No surprise.

    You want to troll and have a free pass against being trolled back? Here's a clue to what is going on: I have children in their 20s. I would prefer the country to be arranged in a way which favours their and their generation's interests over mine. I vote with that in mind. You carry on being a twat if you want, but I don't see how you expect it to help with your mental health issues.
  • FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    removing the limit makes sense but putting it on pensions is unfair in the sense that pension tax relief (ie when you are saving for a pension in working life) only relieves income tax not NI - so if you are now drawing a pension and were taxed NI you would be taxed NI twice on the same income. It would become very tax inefficient to save for a pension then
    Reading back my coment I wasn't clear. Apologies.

    I didn't actually say put it on pensions. Indeed, I got pulled up the other day when we were discussing this because I explicitly excluded pensions and other unearned income.

    What I said was put it on pensioners. I was referring to the fact that, currently, anyone past pension age doesn't pay NI if they continue to work. Hence the 'earned income' comment.

    All work should attract the same rates of taxation including NI irrespective of the age of the worker.
    All earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rates.

    I find it bemusing how some people say that the self-employed shouldn't pay NI because they don't get holiday pay/sick pay etc but NI doesn't pay for any of those. Holiday pay is paid out of the employers labour budget, same as the rest of the employees pay, not by the taxpayer.
    I do think we should amalgamate NI and income tax. For one thing it would make people see how much the Government is really getting from employment. I am in an interesting position as I am operating inside IR35 as a consultant so am paying full tax and NI on the employees side but also paying all the NI and other costs that an employer would normally pay. As a result, I can see that the Government takes about 50p of every pound paid by a company to an employee. Which is kind of ridiculous.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    Well said some of the responses, others responded as I thought they would. No surprise.

    There’s an episode of the Good Life where Margot pays her rates.* The joke is she tries to only pay the things she has used or are done correctly. No kids, I’m not paying that. Roads? No they are in a terrible state, I’m not paying until you sort them out. Ultimately our taxes go into a great big budget that gets spent. Some pay in more, some less. At various stages of your life you get out less than you pay in. Sometimes you get a lot out. I’ve used the NHS extensively over my 49 years and doubt I will pay enough in to match it. No kids until next year (expected 8th Feb) so I’ve paid for schools for years without using them.

    You can argue about the balance of who pays how much, and in a healthy society we debate this. But complaining that the old are useless and the young pay for them is rather puerile on the day that the Queen, who certainly wasn’t useless, was interred into her eternal rest.

    *Rates - the thing before the poll tax.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    Carnyx said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    They do have to live with the consequences of the oldies' decisions for longer. Maybe a formula of weighting the vote by a factor of (100-x) where x is the age in calendar years?
    No, my silly idea aside, they just need to vote if they want change. If everyone voted we would get a compromise of old and young priorities, as it should be
  • The Leicester situation explained in a long thread.

    I am shocked I tell, shocked, to find that it seems social media has played a major part:


    https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1571927657050415104
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,567

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Multiply everybody's vote by how much tax they paid on average over the past 4 or 5 years. That way everybody gets more say over how we pay the tax they raised.
  • Evening all! Did I miss much?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061

    Well said some of the responses, others responded as I thought they would. No surprise.

    There’s an episode of the Good Life where Margot pays her rates.* The joke is she tries to only pay the things she has used or are done correctly. No kids, I’m not paying that. Roads? No they are in a terrible state, I’m not paying until you sort them out. Ultimately our taxes go into a great big budget that gets spent. Some pay in more, some less. At various stages of your life you get out less than you pay in. Sometimes you get a lot out. I’ve used the NHS extensively over my 49 years and doubt I will pay enough in to match it. No kids until next year (expected 8th Feb) so I’ve paid for schools for years without using them.

    You can argue about the balance of who pays how much, and in a healthy society we debate this. But complaining that the old are useless and the young pay for them is rather puerile on the day that the Queen, who certainly wasn’t useless, was interred into her eternal rest.

    *Rates - the thing before the poll tax.
    And then Barbara pays hers in pennies. Classic
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,652

    The Leicester situation explained in a long thread.

    I am shocked I tell, shocked, to find that it seems social media has played a major part:


    https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1571927657050415104

    PB is social media. Blaming social media is a bit like blaming language.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,665
    The first big test is the singing of the national anthem at the Labour party conference. For both the King and Starmer.
  • Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Multiply everybody's vote by how much tax they paid on average over the past 4 or 5 years. That way everybody gets more say over how we pay the tax they raised.
    Multiply everybody's vote by their IQ?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Evening all! Did I miss much?

    No. SandyRentoul had a nice reminiscence of visiting a diesel loco depot, but that was all of note.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    removing the limit makes sense but putting it on pensions is unfair in the sense that pension tax relief (ie when you are saving for a pension in working life) only relieves income tax not NI - so if you are now drawing a pension and were taxed NI you would be taxed NI twice on the same income. It would become very tax inefficient to save for a pension then
    Reading back my coment I wasn't clear. Apologies.

    I didn't actually say put it on pensions. Indeed, I got pulled up the other day when we were discussing this because I explicitly excluded pensions and other unearned income.

    What I said was put it on pensioners. I was referring to the fact that, currently, anyone past pension age doesn't pay NI if they continue to work. Hence the 'earned income' comment.

    All work should attract the same rates of taxation including NI irrespective of the age of the worker.
    All earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rates.

    I find it bemusing how some people say that the self-employed shouldn't pay NI because they don't get holiday pay/sick pay etc but NI doesn't pay for any of those. Holiday pay is paid out of the employers labour budget, same as the rest of the employees pay, not by the taxpayer.
    I do think we should amalgamate NI and income tax. For one thing it would make people see how much the Government is really getting from employment. I am in an interesting position as I am operating inside IR35 as a consultant so am paying full tax and NI on the employees side but also paying all the NI and other costs that an employer would normally pay. As a result, I can see that the Government takes about 50p of every pound paid by a company to an employee. Which is kind of ridiculous.
    But if that is too much what should be taxed higher instead unless tax take overall is to fall?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549
    edited September 2022
    Btw I recommend a look at the Irish Times, which dedicates its front page, second page and pages 5-19, and its most read stories and best reporters, to this event - so they can explain to Irish people how “the British monarchy is now irrelevant” and maybe the most watched TV event in human history shows that “Britain is basically finished”
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,999
    If identity politics requires choosing a candidate of the right color, the Democrats could do worse than Cory Booker:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker
    (In spite of his time at Oxford.)

    He has serious executive experience, as mayor of one of our tougher cities, Newark, New Jersey. The fact that he was willing to take that challenge on impresses me.

    (Fun fact: Both of his parents were IBM executives.)
  • Cookie said:

    Thank goodness we are back to normal tomorrow. CoL has not gone away

    The CoL is a very boring crisis.
    That's not to deny its importance. But philosophically "shit, gas has gone up fourteen-fold, rendering it and everything it is used for" us not particularly philosophically interesting, and neither if the short term answers - "suck it up" or "whack it on the credit card ajd let the kids pay for it" are particularly satisfying. (The long term answers, mind, about how we move away from reliance on fossil fuels and the maniacs who sell them, is both interesting and satisfying.)
    And the news from Ukraine is almost all awful, even if notably less awful than when it appeared Ukraine would be overrun and enslaved.
    I must admit I have rather enjoyed the philosphical musings on the nature of Britishness, identity and sovereignty of the ladt ten days, along with the human drama of The Queue. I have surprised myself.
    I wouldn't want to keep it up for ever - ten days or so is about right - but in pure news terms it has been a welcome diversion.
    I'm surprised at myself here. Royal weddings are shit. But it turns out royal funerals are brilliant.
    It has been a welcome diversion in that sense yes, we return to the fetid toilet bowl am morgen.
    Back to the i reckon, you reckon and the nonsense of polls, PMQs et al
    Most of all its back to the sham breathless earnestness of them all. The offence taken, the deliberate content ripping of every word said, the misrepresentation of everything for polling advantage. Yay!
    No PMQs for a while
  • FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    But isn’t that because - in theory - it pays for specific benefits which are capped. The wealthiest already over contribute but it was felt unfair to have an even greater contribution

    (Personally I would just merge with income tax)
  • The Leicester situation explained in a long thread.

    I am shocked I tell, shocked, to find that it seems social media has played a major part:


    https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1571927657050415104

    There's been Asian vs Asian racial tension in Lestoh as long as I can remember. I've been in the middle of it a couple of times when one lot have torched the other lot's property/motor/taxi, but speaking to colleagues today at our lads funeral in Loughborough, they were saying it's genuinely gone up a few levels and getting scary.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930
    edited September 2022

    Well said some of the responses, others responded as I thought they would. No surprise.

    Are you going to actually engage with any of the responses?
  • Stewart Wood
    @StewartWood
    ·
    33m
    Wonder if the new Government will continue to believe that, as Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries put it a few months ago, “our responsibility is to save the BBC from itself, because it is that polar bear on a shrinking ice cap.” #BBC
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061

    Cookie said:

    Thank goodness we are back to normal tomorrow. CoL has not gone away

    The CoL is a very boring crisis.
    That's not to deny its importance. But philosophically "shit, gas has gone up fourteen-fold, rendering it and everything it is used for" us not particularly philosophically interesting, and neither if the short term answers - "suck it up" or "whack it on the credit card ajd let the kids pay for it" are particularly satisfying. (The long term answers, mind, about how we move away from reliance on fossil fuels and the maniacs who sell them, is both interesting and satisfying.)
    And the news from Ukraine is almost all awful, even if notably less awful than when it appeared Ukraine would be overrun and enslaved.
    I must admit I have rather enjoyed the philosphical musings on the nature of Britishness, identity and sovereignty of the ladt ten days, along with the human drama of The Queue. I have surprised myself.
    I wouldn't want to keep it up for ever - ten days or so is about right - but in pure news terms it has been a welcome diversion.
    I'm surprised at myself here. Royal weddings are shit. But it turns out royal funerals are brilliant.
    It has been a welcome diversion in that sense yes, we return to the fetid toilet bowl am morgen.
    Back to the i reckon, you reckon and the nonsense of polls, PMQs et al
    Most of all its back to the sham breathless earnestness of them all. The offence taken, the deliberate content ripping of every word said, the misrepresentation of everything for polling advantage. Yay!
    No PMQs for a while
    True true, we are spared that. Small mercies. Conference gibberish instead!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    edited September 2022

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Life expectancy at what age? If it's at birth then the old oldies will end up witn negative voting*. Hmm, that's an interesting idea ... worth exploring. Could have merit.

    *As is admittedly true of my own use of a 100 year base constant.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930
    Carnyx said:

    SeanT said:

    5.1 Billion people watched the Queen’s Funeral, 63% of the worlds population #queensfuneral #QueenElizabethII #QueenElizabeth


    https://twitter.com/hrh_william_/status/1571909222593593344?s=46&t=1sQGLd8s3PnQyzkPKr2L2w

    Even if that is a monstrous exaggeration, that is quite an astounding display of soft power. All those Union flags on The Mall

    Hmm. No reference, documentation or evidence.
    Times are reporting four billion on the piece @Scott_xP linked. But agree it's difficult to get firm numbers, and to differentiate live from clips.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,063
    edited September 2022

    Stewart Wood
    @StewartWood
    ·
    33m
    Wonder if the new Government will continue to believe that, as Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries put it a few months ago, “our responsibility is to save the BBC from itself, because it is that polar bear on a shrinking ice cap.” #BBC

    That was just wonderful as they skated across the ice, as was Paddington 2 on BBC1 tonight
  • The Leicester situation explained in a long thread.

    I am shocked I tell, shocked, to find that it seems social media has played a major part:


    https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1571927657050415104

    There's been Asian vs Asian racial tension in Lestoh as long as I can remember. I've been in the middle of it a couple of times when one lot have torched the other lot's property/motor/taxi, but speaking to colleagues today at our lads funeral in Loughborough, they were saying it's genuinely gone up a few levels and getting scary.
    Does seem to have hit a new level. Police were redeployed back from the funeral by all accounts.
  • If identity politics requires choosing a candidate of the right color, the Democrats could do worse than Cory Booker:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker
    (In spite of his time at Oxford.)

    He has serious executive experience, as mayor of one of our tougher cities, Newark, New Jersey. The fact that he was willing to take that challenge on impresses me.

    (Fun fact: Both of his parents were IBM executives.)

    If Biden decides to bow out then the Dem primary is massively wide open. Harris hasn't a cat's chance imho.



  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    SeanT said:

    Btw I recommend a look at the Irish Times, which dedicates its front page, second page and pages 5-19, and its most read stories and best reporters, to this event - so they can explain to Irish people how “the British monarchy is now irrelevant” and maybe the most watched TV event in human history shows that “Britain is basically finished”

    I assume the NYT will be doing similar.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    Eabhal said:

    The first big test is the singing of the national anthem at the Labour party conference. For both the King and Starmer.

    Is the anthem usually sung at Labour Conference?
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,813
    edited September 2022
    Carnyx said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Life expectancy at what age? If it's at birth then the old oldies will end up witn negative voting*. Hmm, that's an interesting idea ... worth exploring. Could have merit.

    *As is admittedly true of my own use of a 100 year base constant.
    a vote for every press-up you can do at the polling station imho- young should get more votes than old , thin get more than fatties , parties organising gym sessions for committed voters . Imagine knowing your 20 press ups were needed to oust Portillo or Balls
  • SeanT said:

    Btw I recommend a look at the Irish Times, which dedicates its front page, second page and pages 5-19, and its most read stories and best reporters, to this event - so they can explain to Irish people how “the British monarchy is now irrelevant” and maybe the most watched TV event in human history shows that “Britain is basically finished”

    You sure you are not looking at the New York Times?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Multiply everybody's vote by how much tax they paid on average over the past 4 or 5 years. That way everybody gets more say over how we pay the tax they raised.
    That effectively takes us back 200 years. JRM would be proud of you.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930

    Carnyx said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Life expectancy at what age? If it's at birth then the old oldies will end up witn negative voting*. Hmm, that's an interesting idea ... worth exploring. Could have merit.

    *As is admittedly true of my own use of a 100 year base constant.
    a vote for every press-up you can do at the polling station imho- young should get more votes than old , thin get more than fatties , parties organising gym sessions for committed voters .
    What a disgustingly armist policy. You should be ashamed of yourself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    But isn’t that because - in theory - it pays for specific benefits which are capped. The wealthiest already over contribute but it was felt unfair to have an even greater contribution

    (Personally I would just merge with income tax)
    NI preserves the contributory element of the welfare state, it is required for contributory JSA and goes towards the state pension eligibility too along with pension credits
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Multiply everybody's vote by how much tax they paid on average over the past 4 or 5 years. That way everybody gets more say over how we pay the tax they raised.
    That effectively takes us back 200 years. JRM would be proud of you.
    But it shows how absurd the idea of weighting people's votes is. One person, one vote.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    edited September 2022

    Eabhal said:

    The first big test is the singing of the national anthem at the Labour party conference. For both the King and Starmer.

    Is the anthem usually sung at Labour Conference?
    No. Starmer is doing the equivalent of getting a tat to show his love
  • Carnyx said:

    Evening all! Did I miss much?

    No. SandyRentoul had a nice reminiscence of visiting a diesel loco depot, but that was all of note.
    Fake news!
  • The Leicester situation explained in a long thread.

    I am shocked I tell, shocked, to find that it seems social media has played a major part:


    https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1571927657050415104

    There's been Asian vs Asian racial tension in Lestoh as long as I can remember. I've been in the middle of it a couple of times when one lot have torched the other lot's property/motor/taxi, but speaking to colleagues today at our lads funeral in Loughborough, they were saying it's genuinely gone up a few levels and getting scary.
    Hope that the funeral you attended today went as well as could be expected.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,404
  • Slumming it in Manchester this week, spent a couple of hours exploring Media City this afternoon. No pics of expensive restaurant food to show off to you, I just had a large noodle box from Chopstix outside Piccadilly station :lol:
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    But isn’t that because - in theory - it pays for specific benefits which are capped. The wealthiest already over contribute but it was felt unfair to have an even greater contribution

    (Personally I would just merge with income tax)
    NI preserves the contributory element of the welfare state, it is required for contributory JSA and goes towards the state pension eligibility too along with pension credits
    Pension credits don't go towards state pension eligibility. They compensate for lack of it (and other income). NI does not affect eligibility.

  • Cookie said:

    Thank goodness we are back to normal tomorrow. CoL has not gone away

    The CoL is a very boring crisis.
    That's not to deny its importance. But philosophically "shit, gas has gone up fourteen-fold, rendering it and everything it is used for" us not particularly philosophically interesting, and neither if the short term answers - "suck it up" or "whack it on the credit card ajd let the kids pay for it" are particularly satisfying. (The long term answers, mind, about how we move away from reliance on fossil fuels and the maniacs who sell them, is both interesting and satisfying.)
    And the news from Ukraine is almost all awful, even if notably less awful than when it appeared Ukraine would be overrun and enslaved.
    I must admit I have rather enjoyed the philosphical musings on the nature of Britishness, identity and sovereignty of the ladt ten days, along with the human drama of The Queue. I have surprised myself.
    I wouldn't want to keep it up for ever - ten days or so is about right - but in pure news terms it has been a welcome diversion.
    I'm surprised at myself here. Royal weddings are shit. But it turns out royal funerals are brilliant.
    It has been a welcome diversion in that sense yes, we return to the fetid toilet bowl am morgen.
    Back to the i reckon, you reckon and the nonsense of polls, PMQs et al
    Most of all its back to the sham breathless earnestness of them all. The offence taken, the deliberate content ripping of every word said, the misrepresentation of everything for polling advantage. Yay!
    No PMQs for a while
    Liz is up the road on Wed. Isn't it Therese and Angela?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    Carnyx said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Life expectancy at what age? If it's at birth then the old oldies will end up witn negative voting*. Hmm, that's an interesting idea ... worth exploring. Could have merit.

    *As is admittedly true of my own use of a 100 year base constant.
    Good point. My proposed policy is clearly only marginally more thought through than I expect this week's government announcements to be.

    Once you get past average LE (83?) that's it, no more votes. You've had your chance by then.

    (I did like the idea of negative votes for the over 83s but the cunning buggers will cotton on and vote for what they don't want.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Carnyx said:

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Life expectancy at what age? If it's at birth then the old oldies will end up witn negative voting*. Hmm, that's an interesting idea ... worth exploring. Could have merit.

    *As is admittedly true of my own use of a 100 year base constant.
    Good point. My proposed policy is clearly only marginally more thought through than I expect this week's government announcements to be.

    Once you get past average LE (83?) that's it, no more votes. You've had your chance by then.

    (I did like the idea of negative votes for the over 83s but the cunning buggers will cotton on and vote for what they don't want.)
    Ooh, yes, hadn't thought of the last bit myself.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    Cookie said:

    Thank goodness we are back to normal tomorrow. CoL has not gone away

    The CoL is a very boring crisis.
    That's not to deny its importance. But philosophically "shit, gas has gone up fourteen-fold, rendering it and everything it is used for" us not particularly philosophically interesting, and neither if the short term answers - "suck it up" or "whack it on the credit card ajd let the kids pay for it" are particularly satisfying. (The long term answers, mind, about how we move away from reliance on fossil fuels and the maniacs who sell them, is both interesting and satisfying.)
    And the news from Ukraine is almost all awful, even if notably less awful than when it appeared Ukraine would be overrun and enslaved.
    I must admit I have rather enjoyed the philosphical musings on the nature of Britishness, identity and sovereignty of the ladt ten days, along with the human drama of The Queue. I have surprised myself.
    I wouldn't want to keep it up for ever - ten days or so is about right - but in pure news terms it has been a welcome diversion.
    I'm surprised at myself here. Royal weddings are shit. But it turns out royal funerals are brilliant.
    It has been a welcome diversion in that sense yes, we return to the fetid toilet bowl am morgen.
    Back to the i reckon, you reckon and the nonsense of polls, PMQs et al
    Most of all its back to the sham breathless earnestness of them all. The offence taken, the deliberate content ripping of every word said, the misrepresentation of everything for polling advantage. Yay!
    No PMQs for a while
    Liz is up the road on Wed. Isn't it Therese and Angela?
    Mr Speaker, Therese, and Angela.
  • FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    removing the limit makes sense but putting it on pensions is unfair in the sense that pension tax relief (ie when you are saving for a pension in working life) only relieves income tax not NI - so if you are now drawing a pension and were taxed NI you would be taxed NI twice on the same income. It would become very tax inefficient to save for a pension then
    Reading back my coment I wasn't clear. Apologies.

    I didn't actually say put it on pensions. Indeed, I got pulled up the other day when we were discussing this because I explicitly excluded pensions and other unearned income.

    What I said was put it on pensioners. I was referring to the fact that, currently, anyone past pension age doesn't pay NI if they continue to work. Hence the 'earned income' comment.

    All work should attract the same rates of taxation including NI irrespective of the age of the worker.
    All earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rates.

    I find it bemusing how some people say that the self-employed shouldn't pay NI because they don't get holiday pay/sick pay etc but NI doesn't pay for any of those. Holiday pay is paid out of the employers labour budget, same as the rest of the employees pay, not by the taxpayer.
    I do think we should amalgamate NI and income tax. For one thing it would make people see how much the Government is really getting from employment. I am in an interesting position as I am operating inside IR35 as a consultant so am paying full tax and NI on the employees side but also paying all the NI and other costs that an employer would normally pay. As a result, I can see that the Government takes about 50p of every pound paid by a company to an employee. Which is kind of ridiculous.
    But if that is too much what should be taxed higher instead unless tax take overall is to fall?
    Spread the tax rather than increasing it on very specific areas. So remove the upper limit on NI contributions to start with.

    Currently the NI level on employment is 13.25% paid by the employee and 15.05% paid by the employer.

    But any earnings over £50,000 are taxed at only 3.25% NI. Which seems utterly daft. Remove that cap and have the whole lot taxed at the same rate and you could reduce the overall rates.

    Also extend it to unearned income with some exceptions (state pensions etc) and have it paid on all such earnings rather than excluding those over retirement age - which is in itself an increasingly obsolete concept given how many people are still working part that age either by choice or necessity.

    At that point you can start to reduce the overall levels of taxation rather than having some important areas of the economy taxed at higher rates than others.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549

    SeanT said:

    Btw I recommend a look at the Irish Times, which dedicates its front page, second page and pages 5-19, and its most read stories and best reporters, to this event - so they can explain to Irish people how “the British monarchy is now irrelevant” and maybe the most watched TV event in human history shows that “Britain is basically finished”

    You sure you are not looking at the New York Times?
    They are uncannily similar

    I’ve realised this is a post-colonial reflex, in part. Readers in Ireland and the USA are fascinated by the British monarchy and gobble up these stories - hence the coverage - yet even as they do so they feel guilty, because Britain was once the colonial Master which they have overthrown. Supposedly

    This creates a cognitive dissonance. Why am I so keen on reading about our evil imperial overlords?

    But if you frame every article as “we’re only telling you this to show how the UK is finished and by the way this is what Kate’s jewellery means” then the Irish or American reader can carry on, unburdened by shame

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,658

    The Leicester situation explained in a long thread.

    I am shocked I tell, shocked, to find that it seems social media has played a major part:

    https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1571927657050415104

    From what I have gathered, the account is broadly accurate. The immediate cause on Saturday was the Hindutava march, but Social Media claimed they attacked a Mosque (they didn't - it was more like an Orange march being deliberately provocative) leading to a Muslim mob burning a temple flag on a Hindu temple.

    There is a lot of misleading and deliberate misinformation on Social Media from both sides. A lot is obviously not from Leicester, claiming Stoneygate was a no go area for non-Muslims etc. It is a leafy University suburb with a hipster vibe, where I go to church.

    Tonight there was a heavy police presence, including mutual aid from Notts police, and I saw the mounted police horse transport in a sidestreet. There have been 47 arrests so far, quite a few from other cities.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,567

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Multiply everybody's vote by how much tax they paid on average over the past 4 or 5 years. That way everybody gets more say over how we pay the tax they raised.
    Multiply everybody's vote by their IQ?
    I have also mischievously advocated that in the past too.

    Ideally, multiply the tax paid by the IQ, for the best result for the country...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,658

    Eabhal said:

    The first big test is the singing of the national anthem at the Labour party conference. For both the King and Starmer.

    Is the anthem usually sung at Labour Conference?
    There are all sorts of reasons for that to go wrong. It is a courageous decision Mr Starmer.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    But the policies are not those proffered in the manifesto to the voters. So the Truss government is illegitimate in that sense.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    Young people have to pay for old people. I say fuck them, you do nothing useful.

    Young people need to vote in the numbers the old do. The country would be a better place for it
    Nah, disenfranchise under 40s, they need life experience to be deloused of their ridiculous doe eyed idealism.
    Multiply everybody's vote by x where x = (average life expectancy - the voter's age).

    That way those oldies voting for stuff they don't have to live with the consequences of (hi Brexit) don't get so many votes as the youngsters who will have to live with it.
    Multiply everybody's vote by how much tax they paid on average over the past 4 or 5 years. That way everybody gets more say over how we pay the tax they raised.
    Multiply everybody's vote by their IQ?
    I have also mischievously advocated that in the past too.

    Ideally, multiply the tax paid by the IQ, for the best result for the country...
    FFS, that might be fine for you but if I had to be multiplying the tax I pay by my IQ, I'd be bankrupt.
  • Cookie said:

    Thank goodness we are back to normal tomorrow. CoL has not gone away

    The CoL is a very boring crisis.
    That's not to deny its importance. But philosophically "shit, gas has gone up fourteen-fold, rendering it and everything it is used for" us not particularly philosophically interesting, and neither if the short term answers - "suck it up" or "whack it on the credit card ajd let the kids pay for it" are particularly satisfying. (The long term answers, mind, about how we move away from reliance on fossil fuels and the maniacs who sell them, is both interesting and satisfying.)
    And the news from Ukraine is almost all awful, even if notably less awful than when it appeared Ukraine would be overrun and enslaved.
    I must admit I have rather enjoyed the philosphical musings on the nature of Britishness, identity and sovereignty of the ladt ten days, along with the human drama of The Queue. I have surprised myself.
    I wouldn't want to keep it up for ever - ten days or so is about right - but in pure news terms it has been a welcome diversion.
    I'm surprised at myself here. Royal weddings are shit. But it turns out royal funerals are brilliant.
    It has been a welcome diversion in that sense yes, we return to the fetid toilet bowl am morgen.
    Back to the i reckon, you reckon and the nonsense of polls, PMQs et al
    Most of all its back to the sham breathless earnestness of them all. The offence taken, the deliberate content ripping of every word said, the misrepresentation of everything for polling advantage. Yay!
    No PMQs for a while
    Liz is up the road on Wed. Isn't it Therese and Angela?
    No - it is the swearing of allegiance by mps to the King

    No PMQS until after conferences
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,486
    Am I being overly hopeful/naive that the events around HMQ dying will reduce support for Scottish independence?

    It feels like the first time in a long time that Scotland and England have very very visibly been equals and a partnership by dint of fate that HMQ died in Scotland so naturally there was a very major part of her ceremony there but also with the funeral and surrounding ceremony such a majorly Scottish element.

    Might be talking bollocks after a few drinks but as a slight outsider it was noticeably a partnership of two countries with one Queen (sorry wales and NI) which I hope might be a positive.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Btw I recommend a look at the Irish Times, which dedicates its front page, second page and pages 5-19, and its most read stories and best reporters, to this event - so they can explain to Irish people how “the British monarchy is now irrelevant” and maybe the most watched TV event in human history shows that “Britain is basically finished”

    You sure you are not looking at the New York Times?
    They are uncannily similar

    I’ve realised this is a post-colonial reflex, in part. Readers in Ireland and the USA are fascinated by the British monarchy and gobble up these stories - hence the coverage - yet even as they do so they feel guilty, because Britain was once the colonial Master which they have overthrown. Supposedly

    This creates a cognitive dissonance. Why am I so keen on reading about our evil imperial overlords?

    But if you frame every article as “we’re only telling you this to show how the UK is finished and by the way this is what Kate’s jewellery means” then the Irish or American reader can carry on, unburdened by shame

    America really needs KC3 to address Congress. He should tell them all their sports are ridiculous and we are extremely disappointed in them. That might get them to buck their ideas up, tough love from Pop.
  • HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    A big majority on only 43% of the vote.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    A big majority on only 43% of the vote.
    Voters also rejected AV in 2011
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    The first big test is the singing of the national anthem at the Labour party conference. For both the King and Starmer.

    Is the anthem usually sung at Labour Conference?
    There are all sorts of reasons for that to go wrong. It is a courageous decision Mr Starmer.
    Not least when they drop it next year.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    A big majority on only 43% of the vote.
    Voters also rejected AV in 2011
    So what? AV isn't proportional!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    removing the limit makes sense but putting it on pensions is unfair in the sense that pension tax relief (ie when you are saving for a pension in working life) only relieves income tax not NI - so if you are now drawing a pension and were taxed NI you would be taxed NI twice on the same income. It would become very tax inefficient to save for a pension then
    Reading back my coment I wasn't clear. Apologies.

    I didn't actually say put it on pensions. Indeed, I got pulled up the other day when we were discussing this because I explicitly excluded pensions and other unearned income.

    What I said was put it on pensioners. I was referring to the fact that, currently, anyone past pension age doesn't pay NI if they continue to work. Hence the 'earned income' comment.

    All work should attract the same rates of taxation including NI irrespective of the age of the worker.
    All earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rates.

    I find it bemusing how some people say that the self-employed shouldn't pay NI because they don't get holiday pay/sick pay etc but NI doesn't pay for any of those. Holiday pay is paid out of the employers labour budget, same as the rest of the employees pay, not by the taxpayer.
    I do think we should amalgamate NI and income tax. For one thing it would make people see how much the Government is really getting from employment. I am in an interesting position as I am operating inside IR35 as a consultant so am paying full tax and NI on the employees side but also paying all the NI and other costs that an employer would normally pay. As a result, I can see that the Government takes about 50p of every pound paid by a company to an employee. Which is kind of ridiculous.
    But if that is too much what should be taxed higher instead unless tax take overall is to fall?
    Spread the tax rather than increasing it on very specific areas. So remove the upper limit on NI contributions to start with.

    Currently the NI level on employment is 13.25% paid by the employee and 15.05% paid by the employer.

    But any earnings over £50,000 are taxed at only 3.25% NI. Which seems utterly daft. Remove that cap and have the whole lot taxed at the same rate and you could reduce the overall rates.

    Also extend it to unearned income with some exceptions (state pensions etc) and have it paid on all such earnings rather than excluding those over retirement age - which is in itself an increasingly obsolete concept given how many people are still working part that age either by choice or necessity.

    At that point you can start to reduce the overall levels of taxation rather than having some important areas of the economy taxed at higher rates than others.
    Totally agree. Even as someone who would lose out under such arrangements.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    But isn’t that because - in theory - it pays for specific benefits which are capped. The wealthiest already over contribute but it was felt unfair to have an even greater contribution

    (Personally I would just merge with income tax)
    NI preserves the contributory element of the welfare state, it is required for contributory JSA and goes towards the state pension eligibility too along with pension credits
    Pension credits don't go towards state pension eligibility. They compensate for lack of it (and other income). NI does not affect eligibility.

    It does for contributory JSA and does for the state pension, just you have to have pension credits if not enough NI contributions to claim
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370
    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    The issue with the election of a new Tory leader is that Liz Truss wasn’t voted for by the people who voted for that party.

    Vote in a general election - not a problem, everyone votes
    Vote by elected Tory MPs - again not a problem, MPs are the representatives of local constituents so they have been elected to lead as best as possible (which includes appointing a new leader at times)

    Vote by party members - a problem because the new leader has been elected by a very random unrepresentative group of people who are not directly connected to the electorate as a whole..

    And given that Truss didn’t win the MP vote that’s going to be a problem as things go wrong..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    A big majority on only 43% of the vote.
    Voters also rejected AV in 2011
    So what? AV isn't proportional!
    They also have never voted for a pro PR LD led government
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    edited September 2022
    boulay said:

    Am I being overly hopeful/naive that the events around HMQ dying will reduce support for Scottish independence?

    It feels like the first time in a long time that Scotland and England have very very visibly been equals and a partnership by dint of fate that HMQ died in Scotland so naturally there was a very major part of her ceremony there but also with the funeral and surrounding ceremony such a majorly Scottish element.

    Might be talking bollocks after a few drinks but as a slight outsider it was noticeably a partnership of two countries with one Queen (sorry wales and NI) which I hope might be a positive.

    Independence and republicanism are separate (no pun intended) issues, to a considerable degree. The Scottish monarchy was separate before and would be again.

    Some PBs hower confuse the two. It was assumed by some that the chaps with placards etc in Edinburgh were SNP folk yet the SNP accepts the monarchy as party policy. But they were from a republican party (the republican republican kind not the Irish republican kind).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,658

    The Leicester situation explained in a long thread.

    I am shocked I tell, shocked, to find that it seems social media has played a major part:


    https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1571927657050415104

    There's been Asian vs Asian racial tension in Lestoh as long as I can remember. I've been in the middle of it a couple of times when one lot have torched the other lot's property/motor/taxi, but speaking to colleagues today at our lads funeral in Loughborough, they were saying it's genuinely gone up a few levels and getting scary.
    There was occasional trouble between Hindus and Muslims at Foxjr's school, but nothing too serious. This is a new level though, and being driven by Indian politics. Most of my Hindu colleagues seem to be supporters of Modi's Hindu nationalist politics.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    edited September 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    But isn’t that because - in theory - it pays for specific benefits which are capped. The wealthiest already over contribute but it was felt unfair to have an even greater contribution

    (Personally I would just merge with income tax)
    NI preserves the contributory element of the welfare state, it is required for contributory JSA and goes towards the state pension eligibility too along with pension credits
    Pension credits don't go towards state pension eligibility. They compensate for lack of it (and other income). NI does not affect eligibility.

    It does for contributory JSA and does for the state pension, just you have to have pension credits if not enough NI contributions to claim
    There's is no such thing as contributory JSA anymore. Your party abolished it.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    A big majority on only 43% of the vote.
    Voters also rejected AV in 2011
    So what? AV isn't proportional!
    They also have never voted for a pro PR LD led government
    If a party gets 43% of the nation-wide vote, they should get 43% of the seats.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Btw I recommend a look at the Irish Times, which dedicates its front page, second page and pages 5-19, and its most read stories and best reporters, to this event - so they can explain to Irish people how “the British monarchy is now irrelevant” and maybe the most watched TV event in human history shows that “Britain is basically finished”

    You sure you are not looking at the New York Times?
    They are uncannily similar

    I’ve realised this is a post-colonial reflex, in part. Readers in Ireland and the USA are fascinated by the British monarchy and gobble up these stories - hence the coverage - yet even as they do so they feel guilty, because Britain was once the colonial Master which they have overthrown. Supposedly

    This creates a cognitive dissonance. Why am I so keen on reading about our evil imperial overlords?

    But if you frame every article as “we’re only telling you this to show how the UK is finished and by the way this is what Kate’s jewellery means” then the Irish or American reader can carry on, unburdened by shame

    America really needs KC3 to address Congress. He should tell them all their sports are ridiculous and we are extremely disappointed in them. That might get them to buck their ideas up, tough love from Pop.

    Quite so. Or just graciously accept them back into the British realms, so we in the UK can get rid of their stupid gun laws for them, and they can finally offload their guilt above slavery - “oh that was America, we are British now, we abolished slavery across the world, hah yes thanks no biggie”

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,526
    Is anyone here going to be at either Lab or Con conferences? I'll be helping run the non-partisan Animals Matter stand at both, and I'm speaking at the Labour Animal Welfare Society event Monday evening. It'd be nice to put some faces to (pseudo)names!
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549
    I am in danger of fawning here so I will stop in a mo, but this is quite a moment

    The queen casually tells someone that as a child she was told stories by J M Barrie. The guy who wrote Peter Pan

    https://twitter.com/cusackandrew/status/1571962736141275144?s=46&t=1sQGLd8s3PnQyzkPKr2L2w
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    A big majority on only 43% of the vote.
    Voters also rejected AV in 2011
    So what? AV isn't proportional!
    They also have never voted for a pro PR LD led government
    If a party gets 43% of the nation-wide vote, they should get 43% of the seats.
    In your opinion, however it also means neither Labour nor the Conservatives would ever have majority and smaller parties would always have the balance of power. Hence voters have never elected a pro PR LD led government
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549
    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    Am I being overly hopeful/naive that the events around HMQ dying will reduce support for Scottish independence?

    It feels like the first time in a long time that Scotland and England have very very visibly been equals and a partnership by dint of fate that HMQ died in Scotland so naturally there was a very major part of her ceremony there but also with the funeral and surrounding ceremony such a majorly Scottish element.

    Might be talking bollocks after a few drinks but as a slight outsider it was noticeably a partnership of two countries with one Queen (sorry wales and NI) which I hope might be a positive.

    Independence and republicanism are separate (no pun intended) issues, to a considerable degree. The Scottish monarchy was separate before and would be again.

    Some PBs hower confuse the two. It was assumed by some that the chaps with placards etc in Edinburgh were SNP folk yet the SNP accepts the monarchy as party policy. But they were from a republican party (the republican republican kind not the Irish republican kind).
    Oh give over. Scot Nattery is full of republicanism and often driven by Irish hatred of the crown

    Not always, but often. This is PB. We know this shit
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    PB travel club request...

    Going by rail for a few nights in Vienna in the spring. Overnighting in Zurich on the way out. Need to decide where to break the trip back for one or two nights: Munich, Nuremburg, Frankfurt? Any other suggestions?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    But isn’t that because - in theory - it pays for specific benefits which are capped. The wealthiest already over contribute but it was felt unfair to have an even greater contribution

    (Personally I would just merge with income tax)
    NI preserves the contributory element of the welfare state, it is required for contributory JSA and goes towards the state pension eligibility too along with pension credits
    Pension credits don't go towards state pension eligibility. They compensate for lack of it (and other income). NI does not affect eligibility.

    It does for contributory JSA and does for the state pension, just you have to have pension credits if not enough NI contributions to claim
    There's is no such thing as contributory JSA anymore. Your party abolished it.
    Wrong, it is now the only form of JSA there is. Everyone else just gets universal credit

    https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/eligibility
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    edited September 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/19/kwarteng-tax-cut-likely-to-give-lowest-paid-just-63p-a-month-says-ifs



    Hmm ... not looking like a good morning back to work for Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng tomorrow.

    Personally I was against the national insurance hike, so it would be hypocritical of me to moan about its cancellation.

    But I feel in my bones that the Truss/Kwarteng project is already doomed.
    This is exactly the time to make the difficult decisions for the good of the country.

    Remove the National insurance upper earnings limit. Make it the same rate on all earned income rather than having a reduced rate for the higher earners.
    Introduce National Insurance for pensioners.

    I want lower taxes overall but I also want taxation to be fairer. Making it so the more you earn the lower your rate of NI is not equitable.
    But isn’t that because - in theory - it pays for specific benefits which are capped. The wealthiest already over contribute but it was felt unfair to have an even greater contribution

    (Personally I would just merge with income tax)
    NI preserves the contributory element of the welfare state, it is required for contributory JSA and goes towards the state pension eligibility too along with pension credits
    Pension credits don't go towards state pension eligibility. They compensate for lack of it (and other income). NI does not affect eligibility.

    It does for contributory JSA and does for the state pension, just you have to have pension credits if not enough NI contributions to claim
    What on earth are you talking about? You were unclear in your wording, but there are only two possible interpretations, that either NI is needed to pay for pension credits, or (at a push you could be saying that) NI as well as pension credits go towards the state pension eligibility, and neither is right.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    The issue with the election of a new Tory leader is that Liz Truss wasn’t voted for by the people who voted for that party.

    Vote in a general election - not a problem, everyone votes
    Vote by elected Tory MPs - again not a problem, MPs are the representatives of local constituents so they have been elected to lead as best as possible (which includes appointing a new leader at times)

    Vote by party members - a problem because the new leader has been elected by a very random unrepresentative group of people who are not directly connected to the electorate as a whole..

    And given that Truss didn’t win the MP vote that’s going to be a problem as things go wrong..
    Gordon Brown. That is all.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Btw I recommend a look at the Irish Times, which dedicates its front page, second page and pages 5-19, and its most read stories and best reporters, to this event - so they can explain to Irish people how “the British monarchy is now irrelevant” and maybe the most watched TV event in human history shows that “Britain is basically finished”

    You sure you are not looking at the New York Times?
    They are uncannily similar

    I’ve realised this is a post-colonial reflex, in part. Readers in Ireland and the USA are fascinated by the British monarchy and gobble up these stories - hence the coverage - yet even as they do so they feel guilty, because Britain was once the colonial Master which they have overthrown. Supposedly

    This creates a cognitive dissonance. Why am I so keen on reading about our evil imperial overlords?

    But if you frame every article as “we’re only telling you this to show how the UK is finished and by the way this is what Kate’s jewellery means” then the Irish or American reader can carry on, unburdened by shame

    America really needs KC3 to address Congress. He should tell them all their sports are ridiculous and we are extremely disappointed in them. That might get them to buck their ideas up, tough love from Pop.

    Quite so. Or just graciously accept them back into the British realms, so we in the UK can get rid of their stupid gun laws for them, and they can finally offload their guilt above slavery - “oh that was America, we are British now, we abolished slavery across the world, hah yes thanks no biggie”

    We dont really want too much administering though. Take control for a short period to root out the nonsense then give them some sort of Dominion status or maybe let Canada run them on our behalf. Or Bermuda.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,960
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    The issue with the election of a new Tory leader is that Liz Truss wasn’t voted for by the people who voted for that party.

    Vote in a general election - not a problem, everyone votes
    Vote by elected Tory MPs - again not a problem, MPs are the representatives of local constituents so they have been elected to lead as best as possible (which includes appointing a new leader at times)

    Vote by party members - a problem because the new leader has been elected by a very random unrepresentative group of people who are not directly connected to the electorate as a whole..

    And given that Truss didn’t win the MP vote that’s going to be a problem as things go wrong..
    It isn't, voters elected a Conservative government for up to 5 years, it is therefore entirely up to the Conservative party who is PM until then.

    Gordon Brown didn't even face a contest amongst Labour MPs or members when he became PM
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    SeanT said:

    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    Am I being overly hopeful/naive that the events around HMQ dying will reduce support for Scottish independence?

    It feels like the first time in a long time that Scotland and England have very very visibly been equals and a partnership by dint of fate that HMQ died in Scotland so naturally there was a very major part of her ceremony there but also with the funeral and surrounding ceremony such a majorly Scottish element.

    Might be talking bollocks after a few drinks but as a slight outsider it was noticeably a partnership of two countries with one Queen (sorry wales and NI) which I hope might be a positive.

    Independence and republicanism are separate (no pun intended) issues, to a considerable degree. The Scottish monarchy was separate before and would be again.

    Some PBs hower confuse the two. It was assumed by some that the chaps with placards etc in Edinburgh were SNP folk yet the SNP accepts the monarchy as party policy. But they were from a republican party (the republican republican kind not the Irish republican kind).
    Oh give over. Scot Nattery is full of republicanism and often driven by Irish hatred of the crown

    Not always, but often. This is PB. We know this shit
    If you want to confuse the various strands of the independence movement, feel free to obscure the clarity of your thinking.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    In the space of two days we had an unelected Head of Government foisted on us followed by an unelected Head of State.

    But it's OK, since the hereditaries, bishops and appointees in the House of Lords will provide checks and balances.

    Thank goodness we live in a democracy.

    It was an elected government, the Tories won a big majority in 2019, just a different PM.

    The republican Corbyn was also beaten in 2019 too and even Starmer now backs the monarchy
    The issue with the election of a new Tory leader is that Liz Truss wasn’t voted for by the people who voted for that party.

    Vote in a general election - not a problem, everyone votes
    Vote by elected Tory MPs - again not a problem, MPs are the representatives of local constituents so they have been elected to lead as best as possible (which includes appointing a new leader at times)

    Vote by party members - a problem because the new leader has been elected by a very random unrepresentative group of people who are not directly connected to the electorate as a whole..

    And given that Truss didn’t win the MP vote that’s going to be a problem as things go wrong..
    Gordon Brown. That is all.
    Same issue. And it didn't end well. GB should have called an election soon after he took over.

    Any new mid-term PM should call an election within 6 months imo. Should be written into our constitution (and write the rest of the constitution down while we're at it).
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,486
    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    Am I being overly hopeful/naive that the events around HMQ dying will reduce support for Scottish independence?

    It feels like the first time in a long time that Scotland and England have very very visibly been equals and a partnership by dint of fate that HMQ died in Scotland so naturally there was a very major part of her ceremony there but also with the funeral and surrounding ceremony such a majorly Scottish element.

    Might be talking bollocks after a few drinks but as a slight outsider it was noticeably a partnership of two countries with one Queen (sorry wales and NI) which I hope might be a positive.

    Independence and republicanism are separate (no pun intended) issues, to a considerable degree. The Scottish monarchy was separate before and would be again.

    Some PBs hower confuse the two. It was assumed by some that the chaps with placards etc in Edinburgh were SNP folk yet the SNP accepts the monarchy as party policy. But they were from a republican
    party (the republican republican kind not the Irish republican kind).
    I get that the SNP are not a Republican Party and kudos to Nicola Sturgeon for her words over the period but I was thinking more in a gut feeling sense that Scots who are wavering might find that this has made them feel more confidently part of the whole and actually like that they are part of something bigger.

    The procession from Westminster hall to the Abbey was probably, for me, the most deeply moving part and it was possibly because of the fantastic combination of the Scots massed bands/pipers and the troops.

    It was remarkably powerful but if it had just been the Scots Pipers etc then it could have been a police funeral in Chicago or a St Patrick’s day March in the US but as part of something bigger with all the Guards etc it was special and I’m sure that others would feel that too.

    As I said, a few drinks in but I loved the duality of the Scottish and English/British progression since HMQ’s death and I can’t be the only one I imagine.

  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549

    PB travel club request...

    Going by rail for a few nights in Vienna in the spring. Overnighting in Zurich on the way out. Need to decide where to break the trip back for one or two nights: Munich, Nuremburg, Frankfurt? Any other suggestions?

    Hitler’s lair at Berchtesgaden

    Beautiful, absorbing, troubling. Certainly with a night or two

    Indeed worthy of a considerable diversion

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berchtesgaden
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    boulay said:

    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    Am I being overly hopeful/naive that the events around HMQ dying will reduce support for Scottish independence?

    It feels like the first time in a long time that Scotland and England have very very visibly been equals and a partnership by dint of fate that HMQ died in Scotland so naturally there was a very major part of her ceremony there but also with the funeral and surrounding ceremony such a majorly Scottish element.

    Might be talking bollocks after a few drinks but as a slight outsider it was noticeably a partnership of two countries with one Queen (sorry wales and NI) which I hope might be a positive.

    Independence and republicanism are separate (no pun intended) issues, to a considerable degree. The Scottish monarchy was separate before and would be again.

    Some PBs hower confuse the two. It was assumed by some that the chaps with placards etc in Edinburgh were SNP folk yet the SNP accepts the monarchy as party policy. But they were from a republican
    party (the republican republican kind not the Irish republican kind).
    I get that the SNP are not a Republican Party and kudos to Nicola Sturgeon for her words over the period but I was thinking more in a gut feeling sense that Scots who are wavering might find that this has made them feel more confidently part of the whole and actually like that they are part of something bigger.

    The procession from Westminster hall to the Abbey was probably, for me, the most deeply moving part and it was possibly because of the fantastic combination of the Scots massed bands/pipers and the troops.

    It was remarkably powerful but if it had just been the Scots Pipers etc then it could have been a police funeral in Chicago or a St Patrick’s day March in the US but as part of something bigger with all the Guards etc it was special and I’m sure that others would feel that too.

    As I said, a few drinks in but I loved the duality of the Scottish and English/British progression since HMQ’s death and I can’t be the only one I imagine.

    Just wait till normal politics resumes. Tomorrow.
  • PB travel club request...

    Going by rail for a few nights in Vienna in the spring. Overnighting in Zurich on the way out. Need to decide where to break the trip back for one or two nights: Munich, Nuremburg, Frankfurt? Any other suggestions?

    I've been to Munich. Quite some time ago but well worth considering 👍
This discussion has been closed.