Paul Goodman @PaulGoodmanCH · 8m 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.
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.
We just need Gove/Tugendhat to replace 'Clever'ly at FCO and the thickies will be marginalised
@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.
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.
New plans to relaunch the European Super League within three years have been revealed because of fears that English clubs have become too dominant.
A new dossier outlining a revived competition has warned that the Premier League is leaving its continental rivals behind.
The presentation, which has been seen by The Times, has been sent to European clubs known to have an interest in the Super League and says that England’s top flight “is outgunning all continental leagues” and that the Champions League “is increasingly dominated by English clubs” who are “backed by hedge funds, public investment funds, sheikhs, oligarchs”.
The company behind the failed launch of the European Super League (ESL) in April 2021 has appointed a new chief executive, Bernd Reichart, who claims it is expected to be re-launched within the next three years. Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Juventus are backing the company, A22 Sports Management, and are involved in legal action against Uefa.
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!!!!
Fundamentally Conservatism is about protecting the *interests* of inherited wealth.
That is *not* the same as protecting inheritances.
The Bourbons who “never learned and never forgot” were determined to preserve every jot and tittle of their historical privileges. And where are they today? **
The Conservatives understood that you needed “reform that you may preserve”. And have been phenomenally successful. ***
Bluntly speaking, wealth can over survive on society of it is in a manner which is acceptable to others less well off. Egregious protection of wealth at the cost of perceived unfairness is not sustainable - it leads to the likes of Corbyn being appealing to a large number of voters. That would not have been a good outcome for the wealthy…
** that might make an amusing thread in due course
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.
Paul Goodman @PaulGoodmanCH · 8m 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.
'It has been a great honour to serve in your government which is going in the wrong direction'
@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.
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
Paid for by all other families - that's more like the Tory values
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!!!!
Fundamentally Conservatism is about protecting the *interests* of inherited wealth.
That is *not* the same as protecting inheritances.
The Bourbons who “never learned and never forgot” were determined to preserve every jot and tittle of their historical privileges. And where are they today? **
New plans to relaunch the European Super League within three years have been revealed because of fears that English clubs have become too dominant.
A new dossier outlining a revived competition has warned that the Premier League is leaving its continental rivals behind.
The presentation, which has been seen by The Times, has been sent to European clubs known to have an interest in the Super League and says that England’s top flight “is outgunning all continental leagues” and that the Champions League “is increasingly dominated by English clubs” who are “backed by hedge funds, public investment funds, sheikhs, oligarchs”.
The company behind the failed launch of the European Super League (ESL) in April 2021 has appointed a new chief executive, Bernd Reichart, who claims it is expected to be re-launched within the next three years. Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Juventus are backing the company, A22 Sports Management, and are involved in legal action against Uefa.
2 English clubs inthe semis last year, 2 the year before, 0 the year before that, 2 the year before that (both into the final), 1 the year before that.
It's a good run, but not that dominating.
Seems like a pretty clear attempt to find a different pretext for why they simply have to form a new league, because the last one didn't fly.
Still one of the stupidest launches ever though - it's not like people like Uefa or Fifa, yet the ESL clubs made them the good guys.
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.
Got a 10,000 majority, so not necessarily among the walking dead....
That's a joke right? 10K is gone in a flash with these polling numbers under Truss.
Hmm, IIRC Kingswood is in part on an old coalfield. Not directly a fracking target as such, but I wonder about other strata in the area. Or indeed coal gasification.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
The #HuntReshuffle is on. Suella Braverman looks to be out (Leaver and ECHR-sceptic).
According to reports, she will be replaced by Grant Shapps (Remainer and Globalist).
This is a coup, the Conservative party is dead.
4:39 pm · 19 Oct 2022"
What a twat. If the Conservative Party is dead it is because all of the thick swivel-eyed loons that moved from his little proto-fascist parties to the Conservative Party and voted for the Clown and then Liz Truss.
Fracking as popular as the Tories then (unoriginal observation).
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?
It’s 100 times worse
This is significantly worse than it felt in the mid 1990s. Far less sense that the practicalities of Government are still happening, amidst the internecine brawling.
Well there isn't going to be a coronation now. The right will definitely challenge.
Indeed.. what a shit show.
Unless 1922 change the rules.
They can't change the rules to avoid a membership vote, as that's in the party constitution.
There is at least one way - set the nominations threshold too high for more than one candidate to realistically get through. But that's a little too brazen.
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
Paid for by all other families - that's more like the Tory values
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.
Got a 10,000 majority, so not necessarily among the walking dead....
That's a joke right? 10K is gone in a flash with these polling numbers under Truss.
10k would be vulnerable at a normal by-election, with normal polling, given potential for tactical voting to punish government of the day. Right now it is a dead certain loss.
So people support windfarms being built in their local area by a huge net majority (net 57% for) that makes the current Labour poll lead look puny. And yet the Conservatives under Johnson and now Truss have put in place planning restrictions that make further onshore developments all but impossible.
And I suspect that the polling would be the same in favour of solar farms, which Truss doesn't want either.
Meanwhile there is a substantial majority against fracking (net 10% against anywhere, net 16% against locally.) And yet Truss is pushing fracking for all that she's worth.
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?
Yes, the Wedgewood Benn family was well looked after and there has been much use of the hereditary principle in the Labour Party to ensure his heirs continue their political influence
On fracking, yet again Truss is simply showing that ideology trumps common sense. It's such a bizarre issue to use as a test of loyalty to the party, given that the likelihood of any fracking taking place is close to zero. Skidmore and others can rightly argue that they are simply voting in line with the 2019 manifesto promise.
So what's behind this stupidity? Is it another IEA/55 Tufton St. hobbyhorse? Whatever it is, it's another sign of Truss's appalling political judgement.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Brexit was never about shutting out the rest of the world...
The #HuntReshuffle is on. Suella Braverman looks to be out (Leaver and ECHR-sceptic).
According to reports, she will be replaced by Grant Shapps (Remainer and Globalist).
This is a coup, the Conservative party is dead.
4:39 pm · 19 Oct 2022"
Is 'globalist' his new code word or something?
Talk of coups is fun, but overblown. The Conservative Party can be whatever it wants to be, he is talking out of his arse if he thinks a specific policy agenda is what defines it (especially one which they have, in fact, not been following for a long time). It's party intrafighting sure, and coup is a reasonable analogy, unless you take it as seriously as he does, where he pretends to think it is an outrage that a party can choose to radically change direction, as in fact it just did.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Brexit was never about shutting out the rest of the world...
It was about spinning a fantasy that the rest of the world didn't matter. A notion that is collapsing as quickly as La Truss' government.
Braverman admits a mistake but twists the knife in, big time.
If it was a mistake. To me, it looks like a good way to "resign" and show how honourable you are (At least *I* do not cling on until my fingernails rip out, unlike you PM) and then she can stand for Leader having "proved" how morally superior she is.
Well there isn't going to be a coronation now. The right will definitely challenge.
Indeed.. what a shit show.
Unless 1922 change the rules.
They can't change the rules to avoid a membership vote, as that's in the party constitution.
There is at least one way - set the nominations threshold too high for more than one candidate to realistically get through. But that's a little too brazen.
That would certainly draw a legal challenge, which is not necessarily optimal.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Free movement has still been replaced by a points system
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Brexit was never about shutting out the rest of the world...
Just shutting out most of it, donning a tweed jacket, smoking a pipe, pretending it is the 1950s and saying "la la la la la I can't hear you" to anyone who might point out it was a stupid fucking waste of time.
The #HuntReshuffle is on. Suella Braverman looks to be out (Leaver and ECHR-sceptic).
According to reports, she will be replaced by Grant Shapps (Remainer and Globalist).
This is a coup, the Conservative party is dead.
4:39 pm · 19 Oct 2022"
Is 'globalist' his new code word or something?
Talk of coups is fun, but overblown. The Conservative Party can be whatever it wants to be, he is talking out of his arse if he thinks a specific policy agenda is what defines it (especially one which they have, in fact, not been following for a long time). It's party intrafighting sure, and coup is a reasonable analogy, unless you take it as seriously as he does, where he pretends to think it is an outrage that a party can choose to radically change direction, as in fact it just did.
One thing that didn't make any sense: Truss appointing Braverman as Home Secretary and then pursuing a pro-migration policy.
The last 12 words are unnecessary.
Nevertheless, AndyJS does raise an interesting point there, as it is pretty weird. I mean, many people did not like Braverman, but everyone knew her stance on that, so Truss appointing her was not a disaster, if you assumed, as you would, that she wanted Braverman to act on her instincts.
Well there isn't going to be a coronation now. The right will definitely challenge.
Indeed.. what a shit show.
Unless 1922 change the rules.
They can't change the rules to avoid a membership vote, as that's in the party constitution.
There is at least one way - set the nominations threshold too high for more than one candidate to realistically get through. But that's a little too brazen.
That would certainly draw a legal challenge, which is not necessarily optimal.
By which point it will be too late, and the courts would be very reluctant to intervene.
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
Paid for by all other families - that's more like the Tory values
Utter crap. The AVERAGE family home would see almost its entire value wiped out by ending the £86k care cap.
All to protect the highest earners earning over £100k from a NI rise to help pay for social care. All classical liberalism in its purest form, putting the individual above the family
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Brexit was never about shutting out the rest of the world...
It was about spinning a fantasy that the rest of the world didn't matter. A notion that is collapsing as quickly as La Truss' government.
Well there isn't going to be a coronation now. The right will definitely challenge.
Indeed.. what a shit show.
Unless 1922 change the rules.
They can't change the rules to avoid a membership vote, as that's in the party constitution.
There is at least one way - set the nominations threshold too high for more than one candidate to realistically get through. But that's a little too brazen.
That would certainly draw a legal challenge, which is not necessarily optimal.
By which point it will be too late, and the courts would be very reluctant to intervene.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Free movement has still been replaced by a points system
Are they using the same points system for free movement in and out of the Cabinet?
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Free movement has still been replaced by a points system
We had a stricter points system before they introduced this points system but eh, why let facts get in the way.
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
Paid for by all other families - that's more like the Tory values
Utter crap. The AVERAGE family home would see almost its entire value wiped out by ending the £86k care cap.
All to protect the highest earners earning over £100k from a NI rise to help pay for social care. All classical liberalism in its purest form, putting the individual above the family
The two aren't necessarily linked. Reducing the burden on the state of paying for the care of the rich gives it more ability to lower taxes on those who are struggling to even get on the housing ladder in the first place.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Free movement has still been replaced by a points system
It will soon be free movement, but with a pretty pointless points system.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Free movement has still been replaced by a points system
SB evidently wanted to close up shop a la Brexit and was told that would not be possible and that the UK would need to welcome immigrants.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Free movement has still been replaced by a points system
The government claims that to be the case but it's not a points system, as advertised, in the Australian sense. It's the pre-Brexit system introduced under Gordon Brown extended to the EU. So we can keep all the furriners out regardless of continent of origin. Brexit is equal opps in that sense at least.
Well there isn't going to be a coronation now. The right will definitely challenge.
Indeed.. what a shit show.
Unless 1922 change the rules.
They can't change the rules to avoid a membership vote, as that's in the party constitution.
There is at least one way - set the nominations threshold too high for more than one candidate to realistically get through. But that's a little too brazen.
That would certainly draw a legal challenge, which is not necessarily optimal.
As RobD notes that would be too late, and it also seems on the face of it to not have much prospect of success - it has been well established that the 1922 committee, under the constitution of the party, has the ability to set the rules on who can stand as leader - hence why the threshold was higher this time than in 2019. Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be declared Leader of the Party
I mean, that seems relatively clear - when an election is initiated (this was argued about under Boris, but let's assume Truss has resigned as leader), the 1922 committee has to present candidates. The executive committee of the 1922 committee can decide the procedure, after consulting the Board of the party (which by that wording need not even agree with the procedure, but must be consulted about it).
Whatever happened to that bullcrap challenge to MPs removing Boris (even though he resigned)?
I don't say cutting out the members in so blatant a fashion is a good idea, but it is clear the 1922 committee is allowed to raise the nomination threshold. On what basis would a court decide that internal party rule is not permissable?
Fracking as popular as the Tories then (unoriginal observation).
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?
It’s 100 times worse
This is significantly worse than it felt in the mid 1990s. Far less sense that the practicalities of Government are still happening, amidst the internecine brawling.
Under Truss, if they tried to set up a cone hotline the junior minister in charge would probably implement something to report anyone eating an ice cream in public.
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!!!!
Fundamentally Conservatism is about protecting the *interests* of inherited wealth.
That is *not* the same as protecting inheritances.
The Bourbons who “never learned and never forgot” were determined to preserve every jot and tittle of their historical privileges. And where are they today? **
The Conservatives understood that you needed “reform that you may preserve”. And have been phenomenally successful. ***
Bluntly speaking, wealth can over survive on society of it is in a manner which is acceptable to others less well off. Egregious protection of wealth at the cost of perceived unfairness is not sustainable - it leads to the likes of Corbyn being appealing to a large number of voters. That would not have been a good outcome for the wealthy…
** that might make an amusing thread in due course
*** until recently
Corbyn nearly became PM in 2017 thanks to the dementia tax you want for goodness sake!!!!
It was only Boris scrapping it and promising to cap care costs that won the Conservatives a majority in 2019
Fracking as popular as the Tories then (unoriginal observation).
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?
It’s 100 times worse
This is significantly worse than it felt in the mid 1990s. Far less sense that the practicalities of Government are still happening, amidst the internecine brawling.
Also the looming threat of 48 hour blackouts (reported in the Guardian today) and possible nuclear escalation. And we have this bunch of turkeys in charge, fighting like ferrets in a sack.
I could not think of a worse time for there to be an absence of stable leadership.
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
Paid for by all other families - that's more like the Tory values
Utter crap. The AVERAGE family home would see almost its entire value wiped out by ending the £86k care cap.
All to protect the highest earners earning over £100k from a NI rise to help pay for social care. All classical liberalism in its purest form, putting the individual above the family
You can't claim to be standing up for the family while arguing that traditionally familial responsibilities should be provided by the state.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no. Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
Free movement has still been replaced by a points system
SB evidently wanted to close up shop a la Brexit and was told that would not be possible and that the UK would need to welcome immigrants.
The issue is that damned fool Cameron Manifesto commitment - they should have junked it years ago.
Brady needs to tell Truss to go now or he changes the rules and holds a No Confidence vote.
Leadership election - 20% of MPs to be nominated.
Get Party Board to agree Final 2 do not go to membership vote. If can't be done, one hustings shown online and members have 7 days to return ballot paper.
Time for all messing around is over. Action required right now - this afternoon.
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!!!!
Fundamentally Conservatism is about protecting the *interests* of inherited wealth.
That is *not* the same as protecting inheritances.
The Bourbons who “never learned and never forgot” were determined to preserve every jot and tittle of their historical privileges. And where are they today? **
The Conservatives understood that you needed “reform that you may preserve”. And have been phenomenally successful. ***
Bluntly speaking, wealth can over survive on society of it is in a manner which is acceptable to others less well off. Egregious protection of wealth at the cost of perceived unfairness is not sustainable - it leads to the likes of Corbyn being appealing to a large number of voters. That would not have been a good outcome for the wealthy…
** that might make an amusing thread in due course
*** until recently
Corbyn nearly became PM in 2017 thanks to the dementia tax you want for goodness sake!!!!
It was only Boris scrapping it and promising to cap care costs that won the Conservatives a majority in 2019
That's interesting. You have always maintained it was that "Boris" wanted to "get Brexit Done" wot won it?
(By the way, it wasn't either. It was Keep Corbyn Out that won it!)
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
Paid for by all other families - that's more like the Tory values
Utter crap. The AVERAGE family home would see almost its entire value wiped out by ending the £86k care cap.
All to protect the highest earners earning over £100k from a NI rise to help pay for social care. All classical liberalism in its purest form, putting the individual above the family
The two aren't necessarily linked. Reducing the burden on the state of paying for the care of the rich gives it more ability to lower taxes on those who are struggling to even get on the housing ladder in the first place.
An end to the £86k cap doesn't just hit the rich it hits every average homeowner in the country with paying the vast majority of their property to the state. It also hits the young too who get no help with deposits from parents or grandparents
Comments
@PaulGoodmanCH
·
8m
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.
New plans to relaunch the European Super League within three years have been revealed because of fears that English clubs have become too dominant.
A new dossier outlining a revived competition has warned that the Premier League is leaving its continental rivals behind.
The presentation, which has been seen by The Times, has been sent to European clubs known to have an interest in the Super League and says that England’s top flight “is outgunning all continental leagues” and that the Champions League “is increasingly dominated by English clubs” who are “backed by hedge funds, public investment funds, sheikhs, oligarchs”.
The company behind the failed launch of the European Super League (ESL) in April 2021 has appointed a new chief executive, Bernd Reichart, who claims it is expected to be re-launched within the next three years. Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Juventus are backing the company, A22 Sports Management, and are involved in legal action against Uefa.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/european-super-league-set-to-be-revived-to-halt-english-dominance-xlqs7zlnr
That is *not* the same as protecting inheritances.
The Bourbons who “never learned and never forgot” were determined to preserve every jot and tittle of their historical privileges. And where are they today? **
The Conservatives understood that you needed “reform that you may preserve”. And have been phenomenally successful. ***
Bluntly speaking, wealth can over survive on society of it is in a manner which is acceptable to others less well off. Egregious protection of wealth at the cost of perceived unfairness is not sustainable - it leads to the likes of Corbyn being appealing to a large number of voters. That would not have been a good outcome for the wealthy…
** that might make an amusing thread in due course
*** until recently
Which would be a disaster for the county if the Tories spend another 3 months kicking the hell out of each other.
@Nigel_Farage
The #HuntReshuffle is on. Suella Braverman looks to be out (Leaver and ECHR-sceptic).
According to reports, she will be replaced by Grant Shapps (Remainer and Globalist).
This is a coup, the Conservative party is dead.
4:39 pm · 19 Oct 2022"
Paul Brand
@PaulBrandITV
·
2m
MPs just openly rebelling on Twitter now. Liz Truss has lost all authority.
https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/sainsburys-bourbon-creams-200g
It's a good run, but not that dominating.
Seems like a pretty clear attempt to find a different pretext for why they simply have to form a new league, because the last one didn't fly.
Still one of the stupidest launches ever though - it's not like people like Uefa or Fifa, yet the ESL clubs made them the good guys.
Singapore on Thames - Markets say no.
Control immigration - OBR says no because markets say no.
Not going particularly brilliantly, now, is it. Almost as if a modern country needs to understand and accommodate global trade, capital, and labour flows as it goes about its business and that it can't shut out the rest of the world.
And I suspect that the polling would be the same in favour of solar farms, which Truss doesn't want either.
Meanwhile there is a substantial majority against fracking (net 10% against anywhere, net 16% against locally.) And yet Truss is pushing fracking for all that she's worth.
So what's behind this stupidity? Is it another IEA/55 Tufton St. hobbyhorse? Whatever it is, it's another sign of Truss's appalling political judgement.
Truss today: "I'm a fighter not a quitter".
Talk of coups is fun, but overblown. The Conservative Party can be whatever it wants to be, he is talking out of his arse if he thinks a specific policy agenda is what defines it (especially one which they have, in fact, not been following for a long time). It's party intrafighting sure, and coup is a reasonable analogy, unless you take it as seriously as he does, where he pretends to think it is an outrage that a party can choose to radically change direction, as in fact it just did.
And all it would take is "an accidental email"
It's never-ending.
All to protect the highest earners earning over £100k from a NI rise to help pay for social care. All classical liberalism in its purest form, putting the individual above the family
I hope there are a good number of conservatives voting with labour on fracking and bring Truss down
We are teetering at the brink
Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be declared Leader of the Party
https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf
I mean, that seems relatively clear - when an election is initiated (this was argued about under Boris, but let's assume Truss has resigned as leader), the 1922 committee has to present candidates. The executive committee of the 1922 committee can decide the procedure, after consulting the Board of the party (which by that wording need not even agree with the procedure, but must be consulted about it).
Whatever happened to that bullcrap challenge to MPs removing Boris (even though he resigned)?
I don't say cutting out the members in so blatant a fashion is a good idea, but it is clear the 1922 committee is allowed to raise the nomination threshold. On what basis would a court decide that internal party rule is not permissable?
One thing we can be sure of is that no one with Jewish parents and grandparents would agree to treating asylum seekers in that way.
It was only Boris scrapping it and promising to cap care costs that won the Conservatives a majority in 2019
I could not think of a worse time for there to be an absence of stable leadership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7p8hfaVz6E
She is set to be replaced by one of the very few people in the House of Commons less honest and competent than she is. Much less good.
And WTF does Truss have against Javid that she spends so much time dripping poison about him? Did he refuse her advances or something?
Even by themselves?
Brady needs to tell Truss to go now or he changes the rules and holds a No Confidence vote.
Leadership election - 20% of MPs to be nominated.
Get Party Board to agree Final 2 do not go to membership vote. If can't be done, one hustings shown online and members have 7 days to return ballot paper.
Time for all messing around is over. Action required right now - this afternoon.
(By the way, it wasn't either. It was Keep Corbyn Out that won it!)