“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
Yes. That’s my thinking
People seem to think a tactical nuke will be just a miliitary/political problem
It will by itself cause economic chaos across the world. Markets will explode with anxiety in every way
People will flee cities etc
There was a dude on here at the start of Covid, Eadric I think his name was, crapped himself and ran off from London to Penrith IIRC. Never heard of again.
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
Yes. That’s my thinking
People seem to think a tactical nuke will be just a miliitary/political problem
It will by itself cause economic chaos across the world. Markets will explode with anxiety in every way
People will flee cities etc
There was a dude on here at the start of Covid, Eadric I think his name was, crapped himself and ran off from London to Penrith IIRC. Never heard of again.
Penarth. The one with palm trees. Penrith is the one with sheep.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses.
Could there be the teeniest bit of veiled criticism of the prime minister in that resignation letter? "Pretending we haven't made mistakes, carrying on as if everyone can't see that we have made them, and hoping that things will magically come right is not serious politics."
Genuinely unclear at this stage whether she went deliberately and has accidentally made herself look like moron, or went because she's a moron and is trying to make it look deliberate. https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1582763565840502784
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses.
Eh ?
Braverman admitted she broke the rules and had to go in her letter
Well, I've been a political animal for just about 50 years now. Regardless of political allegiance, I can't ever recall such mayhem as we have now at the heart of government. It's an unbelievable mess, it really is. The government, and the Tory Party, are disintegrating.
I was convinced we wouldn't have a GE until 2024. I'm not so sure now.
The thing is, Hunt, or Sunak or Mordaunt or Johnson or whoever don't have a majority in the commons either. And the Tories hate their Tory opponents factions, it is not just disagreements but hate and a complete lack of acceptance of each others views.
If the country could live with steady as she goes we might get to a 2024 election, but we can't, lots of difficult decisions have to be made in the next 12 months, some of which don't have a majority in the house without Labour support.
I'm hearing that in a bid to find a popular policy, Liz Truss is proposing to remove Nelson from his column in Trafalgar Square - and replace it with a 40 foot gold statue of Jimmy Savile.....
The Conservative party is very publically and very fatally disintegrating. They need to put in place a team under Hunt, Mordaunt or Sunak by the weekend
Why? Let the f*ckers disintegrate. However they will regroup, they always do (sadly).
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
simple to fix we just protect the last 250k of assets instead of the 86k postulated....average home owner of 300k house pays 50k to there care....million pound homeowner pays up to 750k. See not difficult. Also once again you also miss out the point...the social care levy may have only hit those earning over 37.5k but it was going nowhere near covering even the bulk of social care costs the bulk of which would be out of general taxation still and thus your windfall being subsidised by tax payers amongst the poorest people still.
I for one will giggle insanely if your expected inheritance gets left to a cats home instead of you
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses.
DID she sack her Home Secretary? Or did Jeremy Hunt?
When a backbench MP says something wrong in the House of Commons they can’t correct it.
It sounds astonishing, but it’s true: most MPs, including the Leader of the Opposition, are stopped from doing what we tell any six year old to do - own up to their mistakes.
A broken corrections system means the official record of debates in the House of Commons is littered with false or misleading information. Trust in politics is being corroded from inside Parliament.
Tens of thousands of people joined Full Fact’s campaign to do something about it. Earlier this year we heard there would be an inquiry into Parliament’s corrections system.
Today I was invited to give evidence to that inquiry, and a few hours ago I shared our concerns directly with the Procedure Committee, a group of MPs who can recommend changes to how the official record can be corrected.
This wouldn’t have happened without the 34,000 people who have joined our campaign. Will you add your name?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses.
Eh ?
Braverman admitted she broke the rules and had to go in her letter
The Conservative party is very publically and very fatally disintegrating. They need to put in place a team under Hunt, Mordaunt or Sunak by the weekend
Why? Let the f*ckers disintegrate. However they will regroup, they always do (sadly).
Because short of the ability to force an election i'd rather the country wasnt left to twist in the wind whilst they fuck about
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.
You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
No I don't, the biggest increase in NI was for those earning over £100k who are certainly not poorer than my parents, anyone earning average income of £35k or less had no NI rise.
You by contrast want average home owners with properties of £200k to £400k to lose most of their property value in care costs by scrapping the £86k care cap
You are dissembling by picking on the recent changes.
You want people who pay tax and NI say who earn, £20,000, or £30,000 or £50,000 and have mortgages on a small house to contribute to your parents care costs so that you can inherit their wealth.
That is people who I am guessing are actually POORER than your parents.
That is correct isn't it?
Also I don't want people to lose their properties at all. I have never said that.
No I don't. As I said Sunak did NOT increase NI on anyone earning under £35k a year, only on higher earners, especially earning over £100k.
You however want to force average home owners owning homes worth just £200 to £300k to lose most of their property value by selling it to pay for care costs. You want to take peoples' properties by scrapping the £86k cap!!!
If they are going into care what use do they have of it?
Inheritance for their children and grandchildren, support for and building a nest egg for family a core Tory value
Is it possible that MPs are agreeing not to press for Liz Truss to go, on condition that the rest of the Cabinet meets with the approval of the Chancellor and is more or less acceptable to most of the Tory MPs?
I'm hearing that in a bid to find a popular policy, Liz Truss is proposing to remove Nelson from his column in Trafalgar Square - and replace it with a 40 foot gold statue of Jimmy Savile.....
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses.
Eh ?
Braverman admitted she broke the rules and had to go in her letter
Two scenarios: 1) Braverman realised she has done a silly, speaks to civil servant, does the honourable thing and resigns 2) Braverman does a silly, thinks "so", and gets sacked. Then writes a "you can't sack me, I resigned" letter which fires broadsides at the PM
Braverman has no honour. Just look at her letter - para 3 - and question if she is showing any honour whilst writing a letter claiming honour.
given Gvt docs, incl OFF-SEN, are routinely circulated by top no10 & CABOFF officials by gmail and whatsapp DAILY, the idea that sending a draft WMS via gmail = sacking/resignation offence is laughable.
I'm hearing that in a bid to find a popular policy, Liz Truss is proposing to remove Nelson from his column in Trafalgar Square - and replace it with a 40 foot gold statue of Jimmy Savile.....
I don't have anything clever to say about the ongoing proof of Darwinism in our politics other than it is very very funny
I know that he didn't theorise about the "survival of the fittest", which is often attributed to him incorrectly, but maybe he did prophesise about the political survival of the shittest, which of course does apply to Boris Johnson for quite a while and may continue to apply to Lizzy Lightweight.
This anti-evolution theory (sometimes known as devolution) is where the very shittest person manages to convince the most stupid to promote them to ever more senior positions until eventually they collapse in a cataclysmic mass extinction of all those around them.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses.
Eh ?
Braverman admitted she broke the rules and had to go in her letter
Two scenarios: 1) Braverman realised she has done a silly, speaks to civil servant, does the honourable thing and resigns 2) Braverman does a silly, thinks "so", and gets sacked. Then writes a "you can't sack me, I resigned" letter which fires broadsides at the PM
Braverman has no honour. Just look at her letter - para 3 - and question if she is showing any honour whilst writing a letter claiming honour.
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
Yes. That’s my thinking
People seem to think a tactical nuke will be just a miliitary/political problem
It will by itself cause economic chaos across the world. Markets will explode with anxiety in every way
People will flee cities etc
There was a dude on here at the start of Covid, Eadric I think his name was, crapped himself and ran off from London to Penrith IIRC. Never heard of again.
Penarth. The one with palm trees. Penrith is the one with sheep.
When a backbench MP says something wrong in the House of Commons they can’t correct it.
It sounds astonishing, but it’s true: most MPs, including the Leader of the Opposition, are stopped from doing what we tell any six year old to do - own up to their mistakes.
A broken corrections system means the official record of debates in the House of Commons is littered with false or misleading information. Trust in politics is being corroded from inside Parliament.
Tens of thousands of people joined Full Fact’s campaign to do something about it. Earlier this year we heard there would be an inquiry into Parliament’s corrections system.
Today I was invited to give evidence to that inquiry, and a few hours ago I shared our concerns directly with the Procedure Committee, a group of MPs who can recommend changes to how the official record can be corrected.
This wouldn’t have happened without the 34,000 people who have joined our campaign. Will you add your name?
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.
You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
No I don't, the biggest increase in NI was for those earning over £100k who are certainly not poorer than my parents, anyone earning average income of £35k or less had no NI rise.
You by contrast want average home owners with properties of £200k to £400k to lose most of their property value in care costs by scrapping the £86k care cap
You are dissembling by picking on the recent changes.
You want people who pay tax and NI say who earn, £20,000, or £30,000 or £50,000 and have mortgages on a small house to contribute to your parents care costs so that you can inherit their wealth.
That is people who I am guessing are actually POORER than your parents.
That is correct isn't it?
Also I don't want people to lose their properties at all. I have never said that.
No I don't. As I said Sunak did NOT increase NI on anyone earning under £35k a year, only on higher earners, especially earning over £100k.
You however want to force average home owners owning homes worth just £200 to £300k to lose most of their property value by selling it to pay for care costs. You want to take peoples' properties by scrapping the £86k cap!!!
If they are going into care what use do they have of it?
Inheritance for their children and grandchildren, support for and building a nest egg for family a core Tory value
It is also a very human value. Did not even the blessed Tony Benn, as left as any cabinet minister has ever been, use some kind of trust scheme to ensure inheritance for his family?
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.
You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
No I don't, the biggest increase in NI was for those earning over £100k who are certainly not poorer than my parents, anyone earning average income of £35k or less had no NI rise.
You by contrast want average home owners with properties of £200k to £400k to lose most of their property value in care costs by scrapping the £86k care cap
You are dissembling by picking on the recent changes.
You want people who pay tax and NI say who earn, £20,000, or £30,000 or £50,000 and have mortgages on a small house to contribute to your parents care costs so that you can inherit their wealth.
That is people who I am guessing are actually POORER than your parents.
That is correct isn't it?
Also I don't want people to lose their properties at all. I have never said that.
No I don't. As I said Sunak did NOT increase NI on anyone earning under £35k a year, only on higher earners, especially earning over £100k.
You however want to force average home owners owning homes worth just £200 to £300k to lose most of their property value by selling it to pay for care costs. You want to take peoples' properties by scrapping the £86k cap!!!
If they are going into care what use do they have of it?
Inheritance for their children and grandchildren, support for and building a nest egg for family a core Tory value
It is also a very human value. Did not even the blessed Tony Benn, as left as any cabinet minister has ever been, use some kind of trust scheme to ensure inheritance for his family?
Never thought I'd find you admitting that Tories aren't human beings.
Well there isn't going to be a coronation now. The right will definitely challenge.
There's not going to be a leadership change now, lay Truss to be out any time soon.
With Hunt and Schapps in charge of policy why oust Truss and risk the members electing Braverman? Just keep Truss reading their script like a hostage in a video.
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
simple to fix we just protect the last 250k of assets instead of the 86k postulated....average home owner of 300k house pays 50k to there care....million pound homeowner pays up to 750k. See not difficult. Also once again you also miss out the point...the social care levy may have only hit those earning over 37.5k but it was going nowhere near covering even the bulk of social care costs the bulk of which would be out of general taxation still and thus your windfall being subsidised by tax payers amongst the poorest people still.
I for one will giggle insanely if your expected inheritance gets left to a cats home instead of you
Except the Rightmove average UK houseprice is now £371k so even all but your last £250k for care costs still significantly hits the average homeowners and their heirs. Whereas the £86k care costs cap protects most of the average homeowners estate.
Council tax of course also covers care costs for councils as well as NI nationally but again council tax is paid most by most expensive properties as NI rise focused on highest earners
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.
You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
No I don't, the biggest increase in NI was for those earning over £100k who are certainly not poorer than my parents, anyone earning average income of £35k or less had no NI rise.
You by contrast want average home owners with properties of £200k to £400k to lose most of their property value in care costs by scrapping the £86k care cap
You are dissembling by picking on the recent changes.
You want people who pay tax and NI say who earn, £20,000, or £30,000 or £50,000 and have mortgages on a small house to contribute to your parents care costs so that you can inherit their wealth.
That is people who I am guessing are actually POORER than your parents.
That is correct isn't it?
Also I don't want people to lose their properties at all. I have never said that.
No I don't. As I said Sunak did NOT increase NI on anyone earning under £35k a year, only on higher earners, especially earning over £100k.
You however want to force average home owners owning homes worth just £200 to £300k to lose most of their property value by selling it to pay for care costs. You want to take peoples' properties by scrapping the £86k cap!!!
If they are going into care what use do they have of it?
Inheritance for their children and grandchildren, support for and building a nest egg for family a core Tory value
And how is that lost if people have to pay for their own care?
Well there isn't going to be a coronation now. The right will definitely challenge.
I think that's the plan. Jeremy Hunt wants to split the "not Jeremy Hunt" vote so no other candidate reaches the (doubtless inflated) nomination threshold, because that's his only chance of becoming PM - he'd lose with the membership against basically anybody.
Good riddance to the odious Cruella – probably the worst appointment of all time in the great offices of state.
I find it hard to believe that, if only because she was there so briefly we cannot say how bad she would definitely have been, even if her...relaxed approach to the law as Attorney-General was not encouraging.
As the former Energy Minister who signed Net Zero into law, for the sake of our environment and climate, I cannot personally vote tonight to support fracking and undermine the pledges I made at the 2019 General Election.
I am prepared to face the consequences of my decision.
@PaulGoodmanCH Understand that the background to the @SuellaBraverman resignation was the mother of all rows about migration. Told she was under pressure from Number Ten to announce liberalising migration plan which would make it easier for OBR to say Gvt would hit growth target.
given Gvt docs, incl OFF-SEN, are routinely circulated by top no10 & CABOFF officials by gmail and whatsapp DAILY, the idea that sending a draft WMS via gmail = sacking/resignation offence is laughable.
For once I am kind of in agreement with Big Dom. Even if it is the sort of serious data breach that should get you sacked, I don't doubt for an instant it goes on.
Her own explanation is a big signal that it was about policy.
Braverman has a nerve - breaks the rules (not a 'technical infringement' as it isn't VAR) and then blames Truss. If she felt this honestly, she should have resigned before now
How much more of this must the country put up with before we have a General Election?
What an utter shambles. Never seen anything like it in my life.
I genuinely don't think a GE when there is such a shambles is a good idea. I think the argument for an early one is pretty strong at this point, but they need to at least stabilise to the point the government of the country is not lurching from crisis to crisis every 5 minutes first.
Comments
She said that MILITARY support would continue at this's year's level. Said NOTHING about non-military (at least in that exchange).
Still, it probably sounds better than “this is Jeremy’s first reshuffle”.
But she clashed with PM last night over immigration and blamed for ‘blowing up India trade deal’ recently
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/20162025/suella-braverman-sacked-as-home-secretary/
Dunno - sort of feels like the party is split or is splitting
"Pretending we haven't made mistakes, carrying on as if everyone can't see that we have made them, and hoping that things will magically come right is not serious politics."
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1582763565840502784
Braverman admitted she broke the rules and had to go in her letter
If the country could live with steady as she goes we might get to a 2024 election, but we can't, lots of difficult decisions have to be made in the next 12 months, some of which don't have a majority in the house without Labour support.
Very confident we get an election next year.
Goodbye….
"I mean, everyone loved Jim'll Fix It!"
https://twitter.com/suellabraverman/status/1582762282626736128
Makes sense to me.
I for one will giggle insanely if your expected inheritance gets left to a cats home instead of you
Suella's next job could be in cyber...
When a backbench MP says something wrong in the House of Commons they can’t correct it.
It sounds astonishing, but it’s true: most MPs, including the Leader of the Opposition, are stopped from doing what we tell any six year old to do - own up to their mistakes.
A broken corrections system means the official record of debates in the House of Commons is littered with false or misleading information. Trust in politics is being corroded from inside Parliament.
Tens of thousands of people joined Full Fact’s campaign to do something about it. Earlier this year we heard there would be an inquiry into Parliament’s corrections system.
Today I was invited to give evidence to that inquiry, and a few hours ago I shared our concerns directly with the Procedure Committee, a group of MPs who can recommend changes to how the official record can be corrected.
This wouldn’t have happened without the 34,000 people who have joined our campaign. Will you add your name?
https://actions.fullfact.org/petitions/mps-owe-us-truth/
Dropped a little in last hour or so.
I’ve laid a big chunk of 1.39 “election 2024 or later”
1) Braverman realised she has done a silly, speaks to civil servant, does the honourable thing and resigns
2) Braverman does a silly, thinks "so", and gets sacked. Then writes a "you can't sack me, I resigned" letter which fires broadsides at the PM
Braverman has no honour. Just look at her letter - para 3 - and question if she is showing any honour whilst writing a letter claiming honour.
She. Was. Sacked.
given Gvt docs, incl OFF-SEN, are routinely circulated by top no10 & CABOFF officials by gmail and whatsapp DAILY, the idea that sending a draft WMS via gmail = sacking/resignation offence is laughable.
clearly fired by PM / Hunt
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1582764013456613376
This anti-evolution theory (sometimes known as devolution) is where the very shittest person manages to convince the most stupid to promote them to ever more senior positions until eventually they collapse in a cataclysmic mass extinction of all those around them.
Suella Braverman’s resignation is really about the OBR assumption on immigration, and how much looser government policy is going to be
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08KZugZx5o8
After all, that's basically required by the constitution.
With Hunt and Schapps in charge of policy why oust Truss and risk the members electing Braverman? Just keep Truss reading their script like a hostage in a video.
In reality the best thing for the Tory party now would be for 100+ MPs to abstain tonight and put everyone out of their current misery.
https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1582759403576778752
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
Council tax of course also covers care costs for councils as well as NI nationally but again council tax is paid most by most expensive properties as NI rise focused on highest earners
If it is viable I am supportive of it, even locally to me.
As for other political news, is this what the mid to mid-late 90s felt like? Endless sleaze or incompetence in government day in day out?
I am prepared to face the consequences of my decision.
https://twitter.com/CSkidmoreUK/status/1582764535567376387
Got a 10,000 majority, so not necessarily among the walking dead....
Understand that the background to the @SuellaBraverman resignation was the mother of all rows about migration. Told she was under pressure from Number Ten to announce liberalising migration plan which would make it easier for OBR to say Gvt would hit growth target.
https://twitter.com/PaulGoodmanCH/status/1582767147100811264
Her own explanation is a big signal that it was about policy.
What an utter shambles. Never seen anything like it in my life.
The odds on an election this year must have come down a bit.