Off thread, but I'm currently on hold to Esure trying to get a bit of minor administration done to tidy up an incident from 14 months ago. Just ticked over the hour mark listening to weirdly distorted gloomy piano music. It can only be specifically designed to make you give up and go away. "We're unusually busy today" - no you're not, I've never got through to this department in under an hour and usually give up after two and a half. Reckon I've spent about 48 hours on hold waiting for Esure to answer the phone over the past 14 months.
Yeah any business that leaves the "unusually busy" msg on indefinitely (Doctors too) should probably be taken out and shot.
Just ticked over the 2 hour mark now. *Sigh*
E-Sure Manchester office - The Meridian, 25 Quay Street, Manchester, M3 4AL.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
See my above. The deceased are taxed at the point of death. To suggest otherwise is untrue.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Interior of Euston Station as it uses to be. Off my FB feed, but year unknown.
Yes, it was apparently quite a spectacular place. But also allegedly rather unsuited for modern operations. IIRC that spot is now about a third of a way along the platforms. Sadly, it had to go.
(Though the fact the Euston arch was not rebuilt was a crime...)
I think that was the nicest bit of Euston. The rest was a bunch of sheds
But still probably worth preserving. Especially the arch, of course
America’s loss of great 1850-1950 architecture dwarfs ours. And ours was bad enough. They destroyed townscape after townscape in favour of the car. Whole websites are dedicated to this horrendous barbarism
And the result? It made them all fat
The building couldn't be preserved AIUI. The platforms needed lengthening to cope with modern electric trains, and the station throat could not have been moved north without demolishing large swathes of housing and other buildings (the same problem they have with HS2...). But there was a nice expanse of railway-owned land to the south, including the hotel, and so they extended it that way - and the platforms are now where the building was.
They could have moved the arch (as they did the lodges, which still exist on Euston Road).
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Interior of Euston Station as it uses to be. Off my FB feed, but year unknown.
Nice photo - but it looks gloomily austere. In my head, the old Euston was some sort of vaguely Greco-Roman paradise; a prelapsarian arcadia, with trains. Slightly disappointing to see that not all old architecture was magnificent.
But still. Compare it to the interior of today’s Euston
Penn Station in NYC was the greatest loss of all
Look at it. And they knocked it down
To be fair, it is slightly larger than Rhode Island. You put some mighty skyscrapers on that footprint.
EDIT: I see that Madison Square Gardens was built where it stood.
There are hopeful plans to rebuild it brick by brick. But they probably won’t go anywhere. As you say Manhattan real estate is too valuable to allow massive low rise buildings
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Off thread, but I'm currently on hold to Esure trying to get a bit of minor administration done to tidy up an incident from 14 months ago. Just ticked over the hour mark listening to weirdly distorted gloomy piano music. It can only be specifically designed to make you give up and go away. "We're unusually busy today" - no you're not, I've never got through to this department in under an hour and usually give up after two and a half. Reckon I've spent about 48 hours on hold waiting for Esure to answer the phone over the past 14 months.
Yeah any business that leaves the "unusually busy" msg on indefinitely (Doctors too) should probably be taken out and shot.
Just ticked over the 2 hour mark now. *Sigh*
E-Sure Manchester office - The Meridian, 25 Quay Street, Manchester, M3 4AL.
If I am on your jury, I will find you not guilty.
Thank you. It's not far. I had genuinely considered going down there on the grounds that it would be quicker than waiting for them to answer the phone. I don't know what I'd do once I got there - "have you got an appointment? No." But it can't be less effective than trying to call them or email them. I might have to join twitter and tweet them at this rate.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
My proposal would stop illegal immigration. At no cost to the government. It could also eliminate illegal employment (sub minimum wage).
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
That's incredible. She's lost it. Wasn't Rwanda her idea?
It wasn’t her idea, think it was Priti’s. I think Suella is just frustrated that if she had been in a position to judge the legality before it was pushed through, maybe Attorney General, or had her hands on the policy with the power and resources to push it through as Home Secretary then there wouldn’t be this mess.
Unfortunately the last few PM’s have ignored her skills and ability by limiting her to being Attorney General and Home Secretary so she was unable to do anything about it.
Suella's letter sets out very clearly the legal safeguards she wanted to set in place, and took the trouble to get Sunk to agree to. She did advise. Home Secretaries do not have ultimate control over Home Office policy. The ill-educated useless article squatting in No. 10 declined to take her advice.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
See my above. The deceased are taxed at the point of death. To suggest otherwise is untrue.
I'm pretty sure it's after the point of death
(sorry, I know that's a bit glib, but it's an important point)
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'd have that with the exception that it can be taken into a pension (Subject to the lifetime but not any annual allowances) and the tax paid appropriately on drawdown.
Off thread, but I'm currently on hold to Esure trying to get a bit of minor administration done to tidy up an incident from 14 months ago. Just ticked over the hour mark listening to weirdly distorted gloomy piano music. It can only be specifically designed to make you give up and go away. "We're unusually busy today" - no you're not, I've never got through to this department in under an hour and usually give up after two and a half. Reckon I've spent about 48 hours on hold waiting for Esure to answer the phone over the past 14 months.
Yeah any business that leaves the "unusually busy" msg on indefinitely (Doctors too) should probably be taken out and shot.
Just ticked over the 2 hour mark now. *Sigh*
E-Sure Manchester office - The Meridian, 25 Quay Street, Manchester, M3 4AL.
If I am on your jury, I will find you not guilty.
Thank you. It's not far. I had genuinely considered going down there on the grounds that it would be quicker than waiting for them to answer the phone. I don't know what I'd do once I got there - "have you got an appointment? No." But it can't be less effective than trying to call them or email them. I might have to join twitter and tweet them at this rate.
Our car is insured with esure and on the rare occasions I’ve had to contact them I’ve done so by email and it’s been quick and easy.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
See my above. The deceased are taxed at the point of death. To suggest otherwise is untrue.
Yeah, technically right (well, the estate is taxed, rather than the dead) which is of course the best kind of right. But we do have the weird situation where the estate is taxed, AIUI, in different ways depending on who the beneficiaries are, which makes it look like a tax on the beneficiaries.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
Nice to see Suella Braverman's strategy being called out for the fascist and unConservative bollocks it is.
Damian Green. lol
Is he wrong?
Your inner fascist is poking out
Parliament must be sovereign, in the end. If you consider that fascism then fuck knows how you’d cope with actual, you know, fascism
You’re just petulantly upset that Sunak’s stupid reshuffle turned out to be a disaster - as predicted by some on here, at the time
If you don't realise that politicians demanding that they be allowed to do what the hell they like regardless of the law, without any restraints on their power, without any ability of the citizen to hold them to account is precisely the road to tyranny, it is you being petulant and ignorant. Braverman's second demand in that Telegraph article is the most dangerous, unconservative and frankly astonishing thing for a lawyer and former A-G to say.
It is the frustrated wail of a toddler screaming "I want, I must get".
Sovereigns must be subject to the rule of law, in the end. That is what the Civil War was about. It is what much of British politics has been about since then. If the Tory party fails to understand this in order to placate the frustrations and ego of a second-rate lawyer turned third-rate politician with no competence, ability or achievements to her name then it deserves to be - and I hope will be - obliterated.
Oh give over. I'm not a toddler, I do understand the Separation of Powers. Executive, Judiciary. Legislature. I've read my Montesquieu (or at least the relevant bits in English)
However, the ability to protect a nation's borders and stop unwanted people coming in is fundamental to a government, it is the job of the elected Executive to decide this, the elected Legislature to enact this, and the apppointed Judiciary to police but not obstruct. Stopping the government protecting the borders via legal constraints is like the Supreme Court deciding an elected government and parliament does not have the power to declare war because the ECHR doesn't like it. Would you approve of that?
It seems to me we have a judiciary which is overly political, overly pro-active, and overly obeisant to endless international laws some of which it seems to conjure out of thin air
Braverman is right. Overrule the judges
She wants to overrule all domestic law too.
I don't agree with Braverman's approach. But, I do have strong sympathy with what @Leon is saying.
That's fine. So long as you're happy when Sir Keir as PM tramples all over 'Judicial Review [and] all common law challenges' to facilitate one of Labour's hobby horses.
It's not that. Its the web of law that prevents border control and the intricate lawfare that protects it.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Corbyn Labour were looking at that. An excellent reform imo (with the usual caveat of the detail having the devil lurking in it).
Interior of Euston Station as it uses to be. Off my FB feed, but year unknown.
Nice photo - but it looks gloomily austere. In my head, the old Euston was some sort of vaguely Greco-Roman paradise; a prelapsarian arcadia, with trains. Slightly disappointing to see that not all old architecture was magnificent.
Off thread, but I'm currently on hold to Esure trying to get a bit of minor administration done to tidy up an incident from 14 months ago. Just ticked over the hour mark listening to weirdly distorted gloomy piano music. It can only be specifically designed to make you give up and go away. "We're unusually busy today" - no you're not, I've never got through to this department in under an hour and usually give up after two and a half. Reckon I've spent about 48 hours on hold waiting for Esure to answer the phone over the past 14 months.
Yeah any business that leaves the "unusually busy" msg on indefinitely (Doctors too) should probably be taken out and shot.
Just ticked over the 2 hour mark now. *Sigh*
E-Sure Manchester office - The Meridian, 25 Quay Street, Manchester, M3 4AL.
If I am on your jury, I will find you not guilty.
Thank you. It's not far. I had genuinely considered going down there on the grounds that it would be quicker than waiting for them to answer the phone. I don't know what I'd do once I got there - "have you got an appointment? No." But it can't be less effective than trying to call them or email them. I might have to join twitter and tweet them at this rate.
Our car is insured with esure and on the rare occasions I’ve had to contact them I’ve done so by email and it’s been quick and easy.
Which address did you use? I'm using the credithireclaims address and have had absolutely nothing back. Part of the issue may be that the person who was dealing with my claim has gone on maternity leave. Her o-o-o says to contact the generic address, but I assume what happens is that the team or robot who monitor that address see the reference and automatically forward it on to her, not realising she isn't there. I've also tried the complaints address and have had no response from that either.
The other day I mentioned how Roger Waters was being branded an anti semite in Germany because he wore a Nazi style outfit during a performance, which had been part of the story of The Wall since 1979 (during a nervous breakdown, the protagonist has delusions of becoming a fascist dictator )
Just found out last night that Sir Keir, as well as Michael Gove, wrote a letter trying to get Roger Waters concerts cancelled for it in Manchester!
That's troubling. Rog is famous and controversy seeking enough for politicians to call him out as a dick. That's fair enough. But cancelling his concerts? Who decides this and what is their criteria?
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
F1: mixed feelings. I forgot about my early betting thoughts (haas based on tyres, Ferrari on Monza performance) which could've worked nicely had I made an unusual practice bet. But then, Sainz got a 10 place grid penalty so that would've kiboshed a likelier race bet.
The other day I mentioned how Roger Waters was being branded an anti semite in Germany because he wore a Nazi style outfit during a performance, which had been part of the story of The Wall since 1979 (during a nervous breakdown, the protagonist has delusions of becoming a fascist dictator )
Just found out last night that Sir Keir, as well as Michael Gove, wrote a letter trying to get Roger Waters concerts cancelled for it in Manchester!
That's troubling. Rog is famous and controversy seeking enough for politicians to call him out as a dick. That's fair enough. But cancelling his concerts? Who decides this and what is their criteria?
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
The other day I mentioned how Roger Waters was being branded an anti semite in Germany because he wore a Nazi style outfit during a performance, which had been part of the story of The Wall since 1979 (during a nervous breakdown, the protagonist has delusions of becoming a fascist dictator )
Just found out last night that Sir Keir, as well as Michael Gove, wrote a letter trying to get Roger Waters concerts cancelled for it in Manchester!
That's troubling. Rog is famous and controversy seeking enough for politicians to call him out as a dick. That's fair enough. But cancelling his concerts? Who decides this and what is their criteria?
F1: mixed feelings. I forgot about my early betting thoughts (haas based on tyres, Ferrari on Monza performance) which could've worked nicely had I made an unusual practice bet. But then, Sainz got a 10 place grid penalty so that would've kiboshed a likelier race bet.
I’d bet on Sainz, for small money. There’s likely to be a rebellion against the penalty tomorrow.
Nice to see Suella Braverman's strategy being called out for the fascist and unConservative bollocks it is.
Damian Green. lol
Is he wrong?
Your inner fascist is poking out
Parliament must be sovereign, in the end. If you consider that fascism then fuck knows how you’d cope with actual, you know, fascism
You’re just petulantly upset that Sunak’s stupid reshuffle turned out to be a disaster - as predicted by some on here, at the time
If you don't realise that politicians demanding that they be allowed to do what the hell they like regardless of the law, without any restraints on their power, without any ability of the citizen to hold them to account is precisely the road to tyranny, it is you being petulant and ignorant. Braverman's second demand in that Telegraph article is the most dangerous, unconservative and frankly astonishing thing for a lawyer and former A-G to say.
It is the frustrated wail of a toddler screaming "I want, I must get".
Sovereigns must be subject to the rule of law, in the end. That is what the Civil War was about. It is what much of British politics has been about since then. If the Tory party fails to understand this in order to placate the frustrations and ego of a second-rate lawyer turned third-rate politician with no competence, ability or achievements to her name then it deserves to be - and I hope will be - obliterated.
Oh give over. I'm not a toddler, I do understand the Separation of Powers. Executive, Judiciary. Legislature. I've read my Montesquieu (or at least the relevant bits in English)
However, the ability to protect a nation's borders and stop unwanted people coming in is fundamental to a government, it is the job of the elected Executive to decide this, the elected Legislature to enact this, and the apppointed Judiciary to police but not obstruct. Stopping the government protecting the borders via legal constraints is like the Supreme Court deciding an elected government and parliament does not have the power to declare war because the ECHR doesn't like it. Would you approve of that?
It seems to me we have a judiciary which is overly political, overly pro-active, and overly obeisant to endless international laws some of which it seems to conjure out of thin air
Braverman is right. Overrule the judges
She wants to overrule all domestic law too.
I don't agree with Braverman's approach. But, I do have strong sympathy with what @Leon is saying.
That's fine. So long as you're happy when Sir Keir as PM tramples all over 'Judicial Review [and] all common law challenges' to facilitate one of Labour's hobby horses.
It's not that. Its the web of law that prevents border control and the intricate lawfare that protects it.
That's got to change.
The government has actually had some success, in reducing the numbers crossing the Channel, through collaboration with the French and Albanians. I doubt if the Rwanda scheme would have done very much at all, even had the government won its case.
I think the issues are administrative (where working with other governments pays off), and legal. At a legal level, these need to be worked out at an inter-governmental level - ie rewriting Treaty obligations, all round. I don't think there's any more enthusiasm for mass migration in the USA or the rest of Europe than there is in this country.
Today’s Techne poll is interesting, fieldwork 15-16 Nov:
Cons 22% Lab 46% LibDems 11% Reform 8% Green 7%
That represents no change for Labour but a 3% and 4% drop for the Cons from their previous two polls.
In isolation we wouldn’t want to read too much into it, but taken in conjunction with the last 3 polls since Braverman’s resignation and onslaught, it looks evident that the Conservatives have taken a sustained hit, whilst Labour front bench revolt looks to have caused no lasting damage.
The average polling for the Conservatives from the four latest polls is: 20%
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
That's why I'd go for raising tax thresholds. That can be justified as helping the average worker, and can indeed, be defended in juxtaposition to tightening benefits.
Nice to see Suella Braverman's strategy being called out for the fascist and unConservative bollocks it is.
Damian Green. lol
Is he wrong?
Your inner fascist is poking out
Parliament must be sovereign, in the end. If you consider that fascism then fuck knows how you’d cope with actual, you know, fascism
You’re just petulantly upset that Sunak’s stupid reshuffle turned out to be a disaster - as predicted by some on here, at the time
If you don't realise that politicians demanding that they be allowed to do what the hell they like regardless of the law, without any restraints on their power, without any ability of the citizen to hold them to account is precisely the road to tyranny, it is you being petulant and ignorant. Braverman's second demand in that Telegraph article is the most dangerous, unconservative and frankly astonishing thing for a lawyer and former A-G to say.
It is the frustrated wail of a toddler screaming "I want, I must get".
Sovereigns must be subject to the rule of law, in the end. That is what the Civil War was about. It is what much of British politics has been about since then. If the Tory party fails to understand this in order to placate the frustrations and ego of a second-rate lawyer turned third-rate politician with no competence, ability or achievements to her name then it deserves to be - and I hope will be - obliterated.
Oh give over. I'm not a toddler, I do understand the Separation of Powers. Executive, Judiciary. Legislature. I've read my Montesquieu (or at least the relevant bits in English)
However, the ability to protect a nation's borders and stop unwanted people coming in is fundamental to a government, it is the job of the elected Executive to decide this, the elected Legislature to enact this, and the apppointed Judiciary to police but not obstruct. Stopping the government protecting the borders via legal constraints is like the Supreme Court deciding an elected government and parliament does not have the power to declare war because the ECHR doesn't like it. Would you approve of that?
It seems to me we have a judiciary which is overly political, overly pro-active, and overly obeisant to endless international laws some of which it seems to conjure out of thin air
Braverman is right. Overrule the judges
She wants to overrule all domestic law too.
I don't agree with Braverman's approach. But, I do have strong sympathy with what @Leon is saying.
That's fine. So long as you're happy when Sir Keir as PM tramples all over 'Judicial Review [and] all common law challenges' to facilitate one of Labour's hobby horses.
It's not that. Its the web of law that prevents border control and the intricate lawfare that protects it.
That's got to change.
The government has actually had some success, in reducing the numbers crossing the Channel, through collaboration with the French and Albanians. I doubt if the Rwanda scheme would have done very much at all, even had the government won its case.
I think the issues are administrative (where working with other governments pays off), and legal. At a legal level, these need to be worked out at an inter-governmental level - ie rewriting Treaty obligations, all round. I don't think there's any more enthusiasm for mass migration in the USA or the rest of Europe than there is in this country.
Yes, I agree. Like you said yesterday, there'd probably be strong international support for a revisitation of the treaties.
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Ugly-ass ships! Ghastly!
They look brilliant. And they go like a bat out of hell. You could ski behind them.
(Narrator: the aluminium/steel intersections make it subject to galvanic corrosion, the back breaks if it goes too fast, and it hasn't got real transoceanic capability, which for a ship designed to go quick in water and fight across the Pacific/Atlantic is a bit of a problem. The Americans are retiring the entire fleet.)
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Vaguely comforting that the most modern(istic) warships still require a gun.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
I don't know, sorry. I assumed that one had just retracted it more. Or it could be the situation where later ships in the class look different to the earlier ones, but since one is #2 and the other is #4, I assume not.
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
It's easy for men. For most men, there are exactly four levels of formality: 1) Wearing a suit: Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care. 2) Smart-ish: Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time. 3) Doesn't matter: This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather. 4) Some sort of specialist activity. Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Ugly-ass ships! Ghastly!
That's no doubt what they said in the 19th C when they saw the first ironclads.
They somewhat resemble the earliest ironclad, although their punch is deadlier. It's funny to think that one of those could sink the most powerful battleship of WWII.
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
Whose welfare would you cut Casino?
The best welfare is a move into work, financially, emotionally and socially.
I have consistently argued for UC that supports a move into work, and I don't think it's the job of the state to pay for people to sit indefinitely at home when they could be doing something. Anything. The burden of taxation is too high and there are far more pressing things the state could and should invest in, from science, industry, education and defence.
Attitudes to disability - including mental health - have changed in a way that makes this more feasible than in the past so I think it should be kept under review.
The worst depression I experienced was whilst sitting at home being idle.
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Vaguely comforting that the most modern(istic) warships still require a gun.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
I don't know, sorry. I assumed that one had just retracted it more. Or it could be the situation where later ships in the class look different to the earlier ones, but since one is #2 and the other is #4, I assume not.
I zoomed in, definitely different. Possibly they reduced the aperture on the later one to lesson water ingress?
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
It's easy for men. For most men, there are exactly four levels of formality: 1) Wearing a suit: Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care. 2) Smart-ish: Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time. 3) Doesn't matter: This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather. 4) Some sort of specialist activity. Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
Easier for men and yet some men still manage to dress terribly too.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
Off thread, but I'm currently on hold to Esure trying to get a bit of minor administration done to tidy up an incident from 14 months ago. Just ticked over the hour mark listening to weirdly distorted gloomy piano music. It can only be specifically designed to make you give up and go away. "We're unusually busy today" - no you're not, I've never got through to this department in under an hour and usually give up after two and a half. Reckon I've spent about 48 hours on hold waiting for Esure to answer the phone over the past 14 months.
Yeah any business that leaves the "unusually busy" msg on indefinitely (Doctors too) should probably be taken out and shot.
Just ticked over the 2 hour mark now. *Sigh*
E-Sure Manchester office - The Meridian, 25 Quay Street, Manchester, M3 4AL.
If I am on your jury, I will find you not guilty.
Thank you. It's not far. I had genuinely considered going down there on the grounds that it would be quicker than waiting for them to answer the phone. I don't know what I'd do once I got there - "have you got an appointment? No." But it can't be less effective than trying to call them or email them. I might have to join twitter and tweet them at this rate.
Our car is insured with esure and on the rare occasions I’ve had to contact them I’ve done so by email and it’s been quick and easy.
Which address did you use? I'm using the credithireclaims address and have had absolutely nothing back. Part of the issue may be that the person who was dealing with my claim has gone on maternity leave. Her o-o-o says to contact the generic address, but I assume what happens is that the team or robot who monitor that address see the reference and automatically forward it on to her, not realising she isn't there. I've also tried the complaints address and have had no response from that either.
I’ve deleted the correspondence now, but IIRC, I just emailed the address from which the renewal quote came. This year I phoned the number given on the renewal email, as I wanted to argue the price, got through straight away and had my bill reduced by £50!
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Ugly-ass ships! Ghastly!
That's no doubt what they said in the 19th C when they saw the first ironclads.
They somewhat resemble the earliest ironclad, although their punch is deadlier. It's funny to think that one of those could sink the most powerful battleship of WWII.
I'm not so sure (assuming no nukes). The battleships were armoured on the sides and the top (hidden inside the superstructure). You'd need underwater like torpedoes, and modern surface ships don'tr have the heavy kind old ships did (in fact the newly building RN ships don't have any fixed tubes to use if the helicopter is bust, IIRC).
Edit: unless of course the torpedoes are set to explode under the keel, for the water bubble effect. But are they big enough? not sure.
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I’ve noted before that the Israel pr machine is terrible, I can’t work out whether they are genuinely behind on this stuff or that it’s no one likes us, we don’t care. If the former I’d start with not sending out Regev to persuade the world of the righteousness of their cause.
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
It's easy for men. For most men, there are exactly four levels of formality: 1) Wearing a suit: Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care. 2) Smart-ish: Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time. 3) Doesn't matter: This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather. 4) Some sort of specialist activity. Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
Easier for men and yet some men still manage to dress terribly too.
Like Corbyn.
I was thinking about him. I think his only failing is over-thinking it. I think he thinks a suit too corporate, and so is trying to dress less suit-y - but he's trying to invent a category which doesn't exist. Jeremy, everyone around you is wearing a suit - they're making it easy! Just wear a suit.
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
It's easy for men. For most men, there are exactly four levels of formality: 1) Wearing a suit: Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care. 2) Smart-ish: Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time. 3) Doesn't matter: This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather. 4) Some sort of specialist activity. Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
Easier for men and yet some men still manage to dress terribly too.
Like Corbyn.
As discussed earlier on this thread, Labour could do with hiring a stylist or two for the shadow cabinet. Starmer is obviously a client of Savile Row, but most of the rest of them could do with being thrown through John Lewis
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
It's easy for men. For most men, there are exactly four levels of formality: 1) Wearing a suit: Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care. 2) Smart-ish: Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time. 3) Doesn't matter: This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather. 4) Some sort of specialist activity. Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
Easier for men and yet some men still manage to dress terribly too.
Like Corbyn.
As discussed earlier on this thread, Labour could do with hiring a stylist or two for the shadow cabinet. Starmer is obviously a client of Savile Row, but most of the rest of them could do with being thrown through John Lewis
Actually I’d be amazed if SKS was Savile Row, top end high street I‘d say.
Anyway SKS wants to stay away from a Savile row in all circumstances.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
The grandchildren who are, so far, working are in reasonably well paid graduate jobs. Admittedly they have loans to repay but neither seems to regard that as a problem. What will happen to the other two in this country I’m not, at time of writing, sure. Take the point about the Government wasting money but if a future Leftist one spends it on improving nursery education, then our one, so far, great-grandchild will benefit!
After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
I sometimes think that if a political party pledged to enact a statutory obligation for service providers to answer the telephone within a reasonable period, they would be rewarded with a landslide victory.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
I sometimes think that if a political party pledged to enact a statutory obligation for service providers to answer the telephone within a reasonable period, they would be rewarded with a landslide victory.
Careful - if you use the 's' word you risk Sunil posting his bloody joke again.
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
It's easy for men. For most men, there are exactly four levels of formality: 1) Wearing a suit: Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care. 2) Smart-ish: Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time. 3) Doesn't matter: This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather. 4) Some sort of specialist activity. Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
Easier for men and yet some men still manage to dress terribly too.
Like Corbyn.
As discussed earlier on this thread, Labour could do with hiring a stylist or two for the shadow cabinet. Starmer is obviously a client of Savile Row, but most of the rest of them could do with being thrown through John Lewis
Actually I’d be amazed if SKS was Savile Row, top end high street I‘d say.
Anyway SKS wants to stay away from a Savile row in all circumstances.
After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
I sometimes think that if a political party pledged to enact a statutory obligation for service providers to answer the telephone within a reasonable period, they would be rewarded with a landslide victory.
My pet hate while waiting to get through is: "Your call is important to us".
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
@TSE 's point that they Cosplay Thatcher is a good one.
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
It's easy for men. For most men, there are exactly four levels of formality: 1) Wearing a suit: Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care. 2) Smart-ish: Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time. 3) Doesn't matter: This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather. 4) Some sort of specialist activity. Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
Easier for men and yet some men still manage to dress terribly too.
Like Corbyn.
Not always. He went all Paul Smith when he led the party. And it worked since he has the figure for it.
After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
I sometimes think that if a political party pledged to enact a statutory obligation for service providers to answer the telephone within a reasonable period, they would be rewarded with a landslide victory.
All I want, when I'm on hold, is some idea of moving up the queue. Give me 30 seconds of ringing, followed by 'than you for holding. You are in a queue. Your position is 1024' - followed, 30 seconds later by 'your position is 986' - and I can make a decision on whether it's worth my while holding or whether to give up. I don't want to be told that you are unusually busy - because I get that every time, so you're obviously not 'unusually' busy. And I don't want to be told my call is important. Just some indication of how long I'll be waiting for and some indication of progress. And I definitely don't want music. I can't think of an example in history of 'on hold' music which was more entertaining or less infuriating than a ringing tone would have been.
I hope Man City get docked 50 points every year for the next 5 years.
But to go that far would mean addressing a whole load more sportswashing and corruption and that’s not going to happen. At least, not under the current Government.
Nice to see Suella Braverman's strategy being called out for the fascist and unConservative bollocks it is.
Damian Green. lol
Is he wrong?
Your inner fascist is poking out
Parliament must be sovereign, in the end. If you consider that fascism then fuck knows how you’d cope with actual, you know, fascism
You’re just petulantly upset that Sunak’s stupid reshuffle turned out to be a disaster - as predicted by some on here, at the time
If you don't realise that politicians demanding that they be allowed to do what the hell they like regardless of the law, without any restraints on their power, without any ability of the citizen to hold them to account is precisely the road to tyranny, it is you being petulant and ignorant. Braverman's second demand in that Telegraph article is the most dangerous, unconservative and frankly astonishing thing for a lawyer and former A-G to say.
It is the frustrated wail of a toddler screaming "I want, I must get".
Sovereigns must be subject to the rule of law, in the end. That is what the Civil War was about. It is what much of British politics has been about since then. If the Tory party fails to understand this in order to placate the frustrations and ego of a second-rate lawyer turned third-rate politician with no competence, ability or achievements to her name then it deserves to be - and I hope will be - obliterated.
Oh give over. I'm not a toddler, I do understand the Separation of Powers. Executive, Judiciary. Legislature. I've read my Montesquieu (or at least the relevant bits in English)
However, the ability to protect a nation's borders and stop unwanted people coming in is fundamental to a government, it is the job of the elected Executive to decide this, the elected Legislature to enact this, and the apppointed Judiciary to police but not obstruct. Stopping the government protecting the borders via legal constraints is like the Supreme Court deciding an elected government and parliament does not have the power to declare war because the ECHR doesn't like it. Would you approve of that?
It seems to me we have a judiciary which is overly political, overly pro-active, and overly obeisant to endless international laws some of which it seems to conjure out of thin air
Braverman is right. Overrule the judges
Our executive is not elected. It is appointed by the sovereign. By convention the sovereign appoints members of the elected House of Commons to lead the executive on his behalf but, as you have pointed out just this week, the sovereign can and does also appoint unelected peers to the executive. So what you are actually saying is that the appointed executive should not be obstructed by the unelected judiciary.
You got an example of the judiciary conjuring a law out of thin air? I'd be fascinated to read that.
On my way back to Devon. Surrey friend’s elation at DC’s return has rapidly evaporated with the latest doubling down on Rwanda, which she thinks is morally bankrupt and utterly disgusting + their latest onslaught against those with mental health disabilities on benefits.
Soft or centrist Conservatives really have no place in the current party.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I’ve noted before that the Israel pr machine is terrible, I can’t work out whether they are genuinely behind on this stuff or that it’s no one likes us, we don’t care. If the former I’d start with not sending out Regev to persuade the world of the righteousness of their cause.
It's interesting because they used to be good at this, sending plausible English-accented spokespeople to speak on the Today programme, etc. The quality has really dropped off. I suspect it's related to the internal political divisions they've faced, where I imagine a lot of the sensible people have been purged, a la Brexit. They're current messaging has been nuts, eg Netanyahu saying they had to flatten Gaza to stop Palestinian kids being taught to hate Israel, as though flattening Gaza wouldn't make them hate Israel more effectively than any Hamas school textbook could. At the end of this Israel risks looking very isolated, presumably that's why Biden is trying to rein them in - he has the benefit of distance plus a deep understanding of foreign affairs.
After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
I sometimes think that if a political party pledged to enact a statutory obligation for service providers to answer the telephone within a reasonable period, they would be rewarded with a landslide victory.
All I want, when I'm on hold, is some idea of moving up the queue. Give me 30 seconds of ringing, followed by 'than you for holding. You are in a queue. Your position is 1024' - followed, 30 seconds later by 'your position is 986' - and I can make a decision on whether it's worth my while holding or whether to give up. I don't want to be told that you are unusually busy - because I get that every time, so you're obviously not 'unusually' busy. And I don't want to be told my call is important. Just some indication of how long I'll be waiting for and some indication of progress. And I definitely don't want music. I can't think of an example in history of 'on hold' music which was more entertaining or less infuriating than a ringing tone would have been.
I mainly want the position in the queue and not to hear a repeat of the same message over and over every 30s or so. Its clearly possible as some places do indeed tell you your queue place, so why don't all do it?
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
I hope Man City get docked 50 points every year for the next 5 years.
But to go that far would mean addressing a whole load more sportswashing and corruption and that’s not going to happen. At least, not under the current Government.
I have news for you - Labour won't do a damn thing about football.
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I’ve noted before that the Israel pr machine is terrible, I can’t work out whether they are genuinely behind on this stuff or that it’s no one likes us, we don’t care. If the former I’d start with not sending out Regev to persuade the world of the righteousness of their cause.
There's a handful on here making up for it. Some sterling work being done.
I hope Man City get docked 50 points every year for the next 5 years.
But to go that far would mean addressing a whole load more sportswashing and corruption and that’s not going to happen. At least, not under the current Government.
After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
I sometimes think that if a political party pledged to enact a statutory obligation for service providers to answer the telephone within a reasonable period, they would be rewarded with a landslide victory.
All I want, when I'm on hold, is some idea of moving up the queue. Give me 30 seconds of ringing, followed by 'than you for holding. You are in a queue. Your position is 1024' - followed, 30 seconds later by 'your position is 986' - and I can make a decision on whether it's worth my while holding or whether to give up. I don't want to be told that you are unusually busy - because I get that every time, so you're obviously not 'unusually' busy. And I don't want to be told my call is important. Just some indication of how long I'll be waiting for and some indication of progress. And I definitely don't want music. I can't think of an example in history of 'on hold' music which was more entertaining or less infuriating than a ringing tone would have been.
After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
Infuriating. Wouldn't blame you for having a little cry.
There is simply no way of contacting them. You can phone, and you get put in a queue, and cut off. You can email, and nothing happens. As per @Pulpstar 's suggestion, you can go down there in person - I can't imagine it ending well, but it might at least be worth a try. I've joined twitter and have sent a message via twitter.
I've already had a message from twitter to say there's been suspicious activity on my account. It was a very polite message that I sent them so I can't imagine it's that. Perhaps Twitter is suspicious that I'm not following anyone (well, I am, I had to follow at least one account, so I have arbitrarily chosen the Manchester Evening News.)
Comments
Labour's next PPB? Why not.
"Can I get insurance?"
"Ee, sure"
They could have moved the arch (as they did the lodges, which still exist on Euston Road).
Couldn’t they at least have moved it?! Eeesh
I might have to join twitter and tweet them at this rate.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
(sorry, I know that's a bit glib, but it's an important point)
And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
That's got to change.
Part of the issue may be that the person who was dealing with my claim has gone on maternity leave. Her o-o-o says to contact the generic address, but I assume what happens is that the team or robot who monitor that address see the reference and automatically forward it on to her, not realising she isn't there.
I've also tried the complaints address and have had no response from that either.
How many more decades will it take?
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident
I think the issues are administrative (where working with other governments pays off), and legal. At a legal level, these need to be worked out at an inter-governmental level - ie rewriting Treaty obligations, all round. I don't think there's any more enthusiasm for mass migration in the USA or the rest of Europe than there is in this country.
Today’s Techne poll is interesting, fieldwork 15-16 Nov:
Cons 22%
Lab 46%
LibDems 11%
Reform 8%
Green 7%
That represents no change for Labour but a 3% and 4% drop for the Cons from their previous two polls.
In isolation we wouldn’t want to read too much into it, but taken in conjunction with the last 3 polls since Braverman’s resignation and onslaught, it looks evident that the Conservatives have taken a sustained hit, whilst Labour front bench revolt looks to have caused no lasting damage.
The average polling for the Conservatives from the four latest polls is: 20%
That’s serious (for them).
And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve.
What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect.
Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
(Narrator: the aluminium/steel intersections make it subject to galvanic corrosion, the back breaks if it goes too fast, and it hasn't got real transoceanic capability, which for a ship designed to go quick in water and fight across the Pacific/Atlantic is a bit of a problem. The Americans are retiring the entire fleet.)
What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
That's no doubt what they said in the 19th C when they saw the first ironclads.
1) Wearing a suit:
Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care.
2) Smart-ish:
Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time.
3) Doesn't matter:
This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather.
4) Some sort of specialist activity.
Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-suella-braverman-doing-so-well-on-social-media/
I have consistently argued for UC that supports a move into work, and I don't think it's the job of the state to pay for people to sit indefinitely at home when they could be doing something. Anything. The burden of taxation is too high and there are far more pressing things the state could and should invest in, from science, industry, education and defence.
Attitudes to disability - including mental health - have changed in a way that makes this more feasible than in the past so I think it should be kept under review.
The worst depression I experienced was whilst sitting at home being idle.
Ok, nerdiest discussion point today I think.
Like Corbyn.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
French senator arrested on suspicion of drugging MP with intent to commit rape
Joël Guerriau questioned by police after woman allegedly became ill from drink spiked with ecstasy
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/17/french-senator-joel-guerriau-arrested-suspicion-drugging-mp
This year I phoned the number given on the renewal email, as I wanted to argue the price, got through straight away and had my bill reduced by £50!
Edit: unless of course the torpedoes are set to explode under the keel, for the water bubble effect. But are they big enough? not sure.
I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
Anyway SKS wants to stay away from a Savile row in all circumstances.
Take the point about the Government wasting money but if a future Leftist one spends it on improving nursery education, then our one, so far, great-grandchild will benefit!
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
It obviously fucking isn't.
Everton deducted 10points for rule breaches
I don't want to be told that you are unusually busy - because I get that every time, so you're obviously not 'unusually' busy. And I don't want to be told my call is important. Just some indication of how long I'll be waiting for and some indication of progress.
And I definitely don't want music. I can't think of an example in history of 'on hold' music which was more entertaining or less infuriating than a ringing tone would have been.
But to go that far would mean addressing a whole load more sportswashing and corruption and that’s not going to happen. At least, not under the current Government.
You got an example of the judiciary conjuring a law out of thin air? I'd be fascinated to read that.
On my way back to Devon. Surrey friend’s elation at DC’s return has rapidly evaporated with the latest doubling down on Rwanda, which she thinks is morally bankrupt and utterly disgusting + their latest onslaught against those with mental health disabilities on benefits.
Soft or centrist Conservatives really have no place in the current party.
In our system the executive mainly controls the legislature/
Giving the executive the power to overrule the courts would make them the untrammelled source of power in the country
Sir Thomas More’s warning comes to mind
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
https://x.com/everton/status/1725488379838562374?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
I've joined twitter and have sent a message via twitter.
I've already had a message from twitter to say there's been suspicious activity on my account. It was a very polite message that I sent them so I can't imagine it's that. Perhaps Twitter is suspicious that I'm not following anyone (well, I am, I had to follow at least one account, so I have arbitrarily chosen the Manchester Evening News.)