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?
The Saj ousted Number 10's Jason Stein this morning.
Yeah, but that wasn't the start of her dissing him, was it? I mean, the whole reason Stein was removed is because he was saying unpleasant things about Javid, presumably on Truss' orders.
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.
Right. Yes. Thanks - I don't have it saved and was too busy to look for it.
A choice of candidates. A rule designed to produce only a signle candidate wouldn't be ok. And the courts have set precedent for retrospectively deeming a decision that was taken to not actually having been taken, so I'm not sure the "not enough time" thing matters. And there can always be an emergency injunction, preventing the 1922 from announcing their single candidate is the leader until there can be a ruling.
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
Keeping family sized homes the preserve of the elite and gerontocracy rather than those workers with err, families living at home who are in turn forced to live in flats and houses too small for them, is not helping 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...
In the eyes of many who voted for it, it was exactly that.
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.
You can support elderly relatives but not those with severe dementia who need specialist support
Adam Bienkov @AdamBienkov Grant Shapps, who used a fake name in order to pose as a "millionaire web marketer" running a get-rich-quick scheme, and then lied about it for three years, is now in charge of law, order and security in the UK.
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
Um, those weren't the reasons that Boris won a majority, as you've told us at least hundreds of times.
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
Um, those weren't the reasons that Boris won a majority, as you've told us at least hundreds of times.
They were in part, fear of Corbyn did not win a majority for May in 2017 due to her dementia tax
Adam Bienkov @AdamBienkov Grant Shapps, who used a fake name in order to pose as a "millionaire web marketer" running a get-rich-quick scheme, and then lied about it for three years, is now in charge of law, order and security in the UK.
Not to mention the person who put forward the IRP to the House of Commons, despite the fact he must have known it was (a) not a truthful reflection of actual policy and (b) totally impossible to implement.
The main problem is that Tory MPs never accepted the result of the membership vote.
The main problem is Truss is crap.
As may be - realistically the main problem is that Sunak wasn't ever going to win, so they should have put through someone better to face him.
I'm not convinced Sunak has much substance to him one bit, but it does seem fair to note that the election was just a bad time for him - 8 months earlier he was cock of the walk, but even now members seem at best lukewarm. If Truss and the others were no good, it was his job to be better than them, and he didn't demonstrate that.
The main problem is that Tory MPs never accepted the result of the membership vote.
The main problem is Truss is crap.
The bigger problem is no-one has a majority in the House. Whoever is PM is going to struggle massively and face their agendas being blocked.
Then we need a recognision of that fact, and a GE. Although god knows what platform the Tories could stand on.
The betting market probably won't pick up on it for another month or so. 2024 GE has been slowly inching out but should be odds against already. Once that happens it will take another month or so for the commentariat to point it out and about 3-6 months for the Tories to finally accept that there is no point carrying on. The farce of Carry On Tories will come to a bitter and swift end next year.
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...
In the eyes of many who voted for it, it was exactly that.
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
Um, those weren't the reasons that Boris won a majority, as you've told us at least hundreds of times.
They were in part, fear of Corbyn did not win a majority for May in 2017 due to her dementia tax
Nope.
Two reasons.
Keep Corbyn Out.
Get Brexit Done.
As you've told us at least hundreds of times. It's far too late to move the goalposts now.
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
They wouldn't be paying the property to the state. They'd be paying it to the providers of care. Big difference.
Edit: whether it goes *through* the state is a detail.
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.
And all because he wants to keep his individual inheritance. You couldn't make it up.
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
Why is there a right to have an inheritance? One of the central tenants of conservatism is that you should be given the freedom to make your own way in life, without having to rely on the state for handouts.
Now, I'm not saying I would abolish the cap. But I would certainly taper it heavily so that it only benefits those with very modest assets. It shouldn't be benefitting descendants to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds.
Adam Bienkov @AdamBienkov Grant Shapps, who used a fake name in order to pose as a "millionaire web marketer" running a get-rich-quick scheme, and then lied about it for three years, is now in charge of law, order and security in the UK.
Not to mention the person who put forward the IRP to the House of Commons, despite the fact he must have known it was (a) not a truthful reflection of actual policy and (b) totally impossible to implement.
And what with the receding hairline it's even more obvious that his face is too small for his head.
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...
In the eyes of many who voted for it, it was exactly that.
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
Keeping family sized homes the preserve of the elite and gerontocracy rather than those workers with err, families living at home who are in turn forced to live in flats and houses too small for them, is not helping the family.
The AVERAGE family home would be mostly confiscated by the state for care costs if the £86k cap was scrapped. Not just those of the elite.
None of those funds are therefore inherited by children or grandchildren so reducing their ability to buy a bigger property either
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.
“Globallist” is usually seen as suspiciously close to the old idea of the “Global Jewish Conspiracy” to take over the world. Tends to go along with people who lump the UN, George Soros, the WHO etc etc together as all acting in unified fashion to bring about a new world government that wants your precious bodily fluids etc etc. You know the kind of thing.
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
Keeping family sized homes the preserve of the elite and gerontocracy rather than those workers with err, families living at home who are in turn forced to live in flats and houses too small for them, is not helping the family.
There's no need to argue with HUYFD on this. His position is clear. He believes a core Tory value is the preservation of wealth concentration and that's fine. I believe he has thought through the implications of that position and is fine with it.
The fact that you or I might not be is irrelevant.
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
They wouldn't be paying the property to the state. They'd be paying it to the providers of care. Big difference.
If the kids want the inheritance that badly, they can force their parents to live in squalor at home.
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
I don't think it was only that. Boris was a better campaigner than May, he matched reckless spending ideas, Brexit resolution was on his side, Corbyn had trashed himself in the 2 years since etc. But it helped.
The dementia tax, in principle, was a good idea, but yes it was obviously unpopular.
As Driver notes, you've given plenty of other reasons for his win.
Robert Peston @Peston · 7m Absolutely amazing that Fullbrook still owns 10% of Lynton Crosby’s lobbying firm - as per @guardian . How can Cabinet secretary Case have permitted this? If he did, Case in serious trouble. If he didn’t, Fullbrook’s position is impossible
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!!!!
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.
A key thing that has made the EPL dominant over the other leagues is the fair distribution of TV money creating at least some competitive balance.
The response by the elite in other leagues is not to replicate that, but go the opposite way by protecting the elite clubs finances. I hope they fail.
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.
“Globallist” is usually seen as suspiciously close to the old idea of the “Global Jewish Conspiracy” to take over the world. Tends to go along with people who lump the UN, George Soros, the WHO etc etc together as all acting in unified fashion to bring about a new world government that wants your precious bodily fluids etc etc. You know the kind of thing.
HYUFD was going on about protecting bodily fluids or something earlier.
Robert Peston @Peston · 7m Absolutely amazing that Fullbrook still owns 10% of Lynton Crosby’s lobbying firm - as per @guardian . How can Cabinet secretary Case have permitted this? If he did, Case in serious trouble. If he didn’t, Fullbrook’s position is impossible
Is anything working as it should in this bloody government?
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
Why is there a right to have an inheritance? One of the central tenants of conservatism is that you should be given the freedom to make your own way in life, without having to rely on the state for handouts.
Now, I'm not saying I would abolish the cap. But I would certainly taper it heavily so that it only benefits those with very modest assets. It shouldn't be benefitting descendants to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds.
I already told him the answer as he is "oh so concerned" about the inheritance of average families. Abolish the cap but put in place a limit below which your assets cannot be reduced. Make it say 250k that protects most of an average house and with the average 2 siblings they both get 125k. However someone living in a million pound house might end up paying all there care costs assuming they dont survive long enough to get through 750k of care
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!!!!
By "nearly", you mean he was 55 seats adrift?
Rather than 124 seats adrift in 2019 once Boris scrapped the hated dementia tax
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!!!!
By "nearly", you mean he was 55 seats adrift?
Rather than 124 seats adrift in 2019 once Boris scrapped the hated dementia tax
55 seats is not "nearly". Examples of close results would be Feb 1974, or 1964, to name but a couple.
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...
In the eyes of many who voted for it, it was exactly that.
I mean, it really wasn't. Did you vote Remain?
Yes, of course. I've always been one of the most extreme Europhiles on this Site and I've been posting since its early days.
The Leavers I spoke to clearly thought Brexit would enable us to disregard the views and interests of rest of the world. There are of course more sophisticated and rational iterations, but for less sophisticated voters it was clearly very much to do with shutting out the rest of the world in one way or another, and largely without regard to how the rest of the world might respond.
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
Why is there a right to have an inheritance? One of the central tenants of conservatism is that you should be given the freedom to make your own way in life, without having to rely on the state for handouts.
Now, I'm not saying I would abolish the cap. But I would certainly taper it heavily so that it only benefits those with very modest assets. It shouldn't be benefitting descendants to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds.
No, having the freedom to make your own way in life economically and socially is a Libertarian, classical liberal tenant, not a Conservative one.
Conservativisms core tenants are inherited wealth, tradition, the Crown and family.
Libertarians just join with Conservatives to keep out Socialists, that does not mean they are Conservatives
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.
“Globallist” is usually seen as suspiciously close to the old idea of the “Global Jewish Conspiracy” to take over the world. Tends to go along with people who lump the UN, George Soros, the WHO etc etc together as all acting in unified fashion to bring about a new world government that wants your precious bodily fluids etc etc. You know the kind of thing.
That is certainly true, but the other side to that coin is that there are a lot of non-conspiracy-theory types who use it more in the way we might use "the establishment" in the uk - that there is a small, privileged clique in power who all know each other and have a very defined, shared worldview along with the means to implement the policies that result from that shared world view.
One does not need to indulge in odious Jewish conspiracy theories to think the above is the case - just as it is for "the establishment" within the UK.
Robert Peston @Peston · 7m Absolutely amazing that Fullbrook still owns 10% of Lynton Crosby’s lobbying firm - as per @guardian . How can Cabinet secretary Case have permitted this? If he did, Case in serious trouble. If he didn’t, Fullbrook’s position is impossible
Is anything working as it should in this bloody government?
No, because Johnson oversaw a great corruption of the institutions.
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...
In the eyes of many who voted for it, it was exactly that.
I mean, it really wasn't. Did you vote Remain?
Yes, of course.
I thought so. Those who misrepresent the reasons for Brexit nearly always did. I guess it's mostly confirmation bias.
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
Why is there a right to have an inheritance? One of the central tenants of conservatism is that you should be given the freedom to make your own way in life, without having to rely on the state for handouts.
Now, I'm not saying I would abolish the cap. But I would certainly taper it heavily so that it only benefits those with very modest assets. It shouldn't be benefitting descendants to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds.
Some people decide to earn money not for themselves but for their family. So from that point of view inheritance is the opposite of selfishness.
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
Why is there a right to have an inheritance? One of the central tenants of conservatism is that you should be given the freedom to make your own way in life, without having to rely on the state for handouts.
Now, I'm not saying I would abolish the cap. But I would certainly taper it heavily so that it only benefits those with very modest assets. It shouldn't be benefitting descendants to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds.
Some people decide to earn money not for themselves but for their family. So from that point of view inheritance is the opposite of selfishness.
Then why accumulate it themselves instead of handing it down as they are earning it?
The Tories aren't going to call a suicidal early General Election under any circumstances, so you can forget any such idea just because you're embarassed and want shot of them earlier.
This parliament is going to term. Bet accordingly.
"An honest mistake involving a work e-mail on a private phone". That will be seen as a stitch-up by Braverman backers (probably correctly). I think Hunt's play is to split the right-wing vote in the MPs phase of any leadership contest.
Translates as, 'I am not smart enough to follow rules regarding natural security.'
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.
“Globallist” is usually seen as suspiciously close to the old idea of the “Global Jewish Conspiracy” to take over the world. Tends to go along with people who lump the UN, George Soros, the WHO etc etc together as all acting in unified fashion to bring about a new world government that wants your precious bodily fluids etc etc. You know the kind of thing.
Correct. Except that the UN, WHO, WEF, etc, are all merely front-organisations of the Elders of Zion (Prop - Soros, G.). Quite quite mad and really quite widespread.
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.
“Globallist” is usually seen as suspiciously close to the old idea of the “Global Jewish Conspiracy” to take over the world. Tends to go along with people who lump the UN, George Soros, the WHO etc etc together as all acting in unified fashion to bring about a new world government that wants your precious bodily fluids etc etc. You know the kind of thing.
That is certainly true, but the other side to that coin is that there are a lot of non-conspiracy-theory types who use it more in the way we might use "the establishment" in the uk - that there is a small, privileged clique in power who all know each other and have a very defined, shared worldview along with the means to implement the policies that result from that shared world view.
One does not need to indulge in odious Jewish conspiracy theories to think the above is the case - just as it is for "the establishment" within the UK.
That is why they say 'Globalists' and not 'Jews'. It brings people along with them who haven't yet been 'pilled' all the way
“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
Wallace's short-notice meeting in the USA and Truss's disappearing act were to do with Norway.
Are you following the Norway story? Norway and drones and gas and oil. And kaboom. And article 5.
That's what the coolest conspiracy kids are saying anyway. (Not on Twitter.)
WW3 will be strategic-nuclear (as well as biological), but the big event that moves us along towards Armageddon doesn't have to be tactical-nuclear. It may be conventional.
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
How can the Scottish Nationalists be His Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, OKC, but they would be second largest Party in Westminster, ...so they automatically become the official Opposition.
No?
Is there a rule that when applied always tells you who the LOTO has been since, say, 1911?
Frederick Pethick-Lawrence was LOTO in 1942 without being the leader of a party. Arthur Greenwood who took over from him and held the position until 1945 wasn't a party leader either. Nor was Herbert Morrison in 1955.
Comments
The Conservative party is a comedy act.
“This is a coup”; Farage is a tw@t.
A choice of candidates. A rule designed to produce only a signle candidate wouldn't be ok. And the courts have set precedent for retrospectively deeming a decision that was taken to not actually having been taken, so I'm not sure the "not enough time" thing matters. And there can always be an emergency injunction, preventing the 1922 from announcing their single candidate is the leader until there can be a ruling.
Adam Bienkov
@AdamBienkov
Grant Shapps, who used a fake name in order to pose as a "millionaire web marketer" running a get-rich-quick scheme, and then lied about it for three years, is now in charge of law, order and security in the UK.
Probably:
Dear Suella,
Fuck off.
Yours,
Liz.
Good to have something to rely on.
Two reasons.
Keep Corbyn Out.
Get Brexit Done.
As you've told us at least hundreds of times. It's far too late to move the goalposts now.
Edit: whether it goes *through* the state is a detail.
Now, I'm not saying I would abolish the cap. But I would certainly taper it heavily so that it only benefits those with very modest assets. It shouldn't be benefitting descendants to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds.
Nothing like as bad as this. The Govt was not internally imploding at the same time as the chaos like now.
None of those funds are therefore inherited by children or grandchildren so reducing their ability to buy a bigger property either
The fact that you or I might not be is irrelevant.
Our interview with a Government minister has been pulled at the last minute.
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1582775282943291392
Universashamblefuck, perhaps ?
The dementia tax, in principle, was a good idea, but yes it was obviously unpopular.
As Driver notes, you've given plenty of other reasons for his win.
Fuck off.
Yours,
Suella.
Corrected it for you.
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
7m
Absolutely amazing that Fullbrook still owns 10% of Lynton Crosby’s lobbying firm - as per
@guardian
. How can Cabinet secretary Case have permitted this? If he did, Case in serious trouble. If he didn’t, Fullbrook’s position is impossible
The response by the elite in other leagues is not to replicate that, but go the opposite way by protecting the elite clubs finances. I hope they fail.
Do you think it will run to six lessons, or should I stick to five?
Dear Suella,
Fuck off.
Yours,
Suella.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1582758347425878018
The Leavers I spoke to clearly thought Brexit would enable us to disregard the views and interests of rest of the world. There are of course more sophisticated and rational iterations, but for less sophisticated voters it was clearly very much to do with shutting out the rest of the world in one way or another, and largely without regard to how the rest of the world might respond.
Conservativisms core tenants are inherited wealth, tradition, the Crown and family.
Libertarians just join with Conservatives to keep out Socialists, that does not mean they are Conservatives
One does not need to indulge in odious Jewish conspiracy theories to think the above is the case - just as it is for "the establishment" within the UK.
As of today PM, CoE, Home Secretary and Defence Sec all voted against Brexit in 2016. Things are looking up! No wonder Farage is on the warpath.
His use of the term “globalist” to describe Shapps is beyond the pale for me.
Shame on anyone who went along with his bigoted and deeply damaging project.
This parliament is going to term. Bet accordingly.
Wallace's short-notice meeting in the USA and Truss's disappearing act were to do with Norway.
Are you following the Norway story? Norway and drones and gas and oil. And kaboom. And article 5.
That's what the coolest conspiracy kids are saying anyway. (Not on Twitter.)
WW3 will be strategic-nuclear (as well as biological), but the big event that moves us along towards Armageddon doesn't have to be tactical-nuclear. It may be conventional.
Frederick Pethick-Lawrence was LOTO in 1942 without being the leader of a party. Arthur Greenwood who took over from him and held the position until 1945 wasn't a party leader either. Nor was Herbert Morrison in 1955.
Who decides?