‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
He should do something radical for us hard working workers and reduce the top rate of tax from 45p to something more manageable like 30p.
Workers of the world unite.
If he really wanted to help struggling families a big cut in fuel duty would help a lot.
Petrol is roughly the same price now as it was 11 years ago, what's the problem here?
Total cost of fuel duty freeze so far is over £80 billion.
Oh god, you're still banging this dumb drum?
Everyone who isn't barking mad knows that drivers are utterly fleeced in taxation, while public transport is heavily subsidised, but still not popular anywhere the roads are remotely functional despite that.
Lets end duties and subsidies and go to true user-pays level of expenditure for the roads and rails, see what happens then . . . 🤦♂️
Notable how much more expensive fuel is here in France now. I used to wait to fill up until I’d crossed the channel. Now I stock up in Blighty before a France trip.
As a regular cross-Europe driver, the relative prices in the big countries move about, and where it is best to fill up changes from year to year. The only reliables are that, if you get the chance, you will save money by filling up in Luxembourg, Austria or Slovenia.
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
That has no relationship at all to what I wrote.
The demand for free food is effectively infinite, the supply of it is what is finite. If more food parcels are given out, that means that more people are donating to charity, that's a good thing and not a bad one.
And its infinitely better than the payday loan companies like Wonga that proliferated under Blair and Brown.
2012 saw a surge in food donations, yes. It also saw a collapse in payday loans. Coincidence or not?
Which would you rather someone turn to when they have too much month at the end of their money: the Trussel Trust, like under Cameron, or Wonga, like under Blair and Brown?
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
He should do something radical for us hard working workers and reduce the top rate of tax from 45p to something more manageable like 30p.
Workers of the world unite.
The first priority should be to increase the personal allowance to £20,000pa 👍
And end the Allowance clawback
Absolutely correct. There should be no effective 60% rate between £100k and £125k.
Maybe instead we have: PA £20,000 and everyone gets a PA 20% on next £50,000 ie £20k to £50k 40% on further £50,000 ie £70 to £120k 50% beyond £120k
Wouldn't raise enough...
It's like the question of why does IR35 exist - let me show you the 60bn reasons..
Permission to laugh slightly hysterically at the idea that, given that there are an awful lot of bits of the public sector that could really do with having money spent on them, tax cuts are a realistic proposition right now?
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
What sort of uncouth chav drinks champagne by the pint?
Champagne is so classy because of the name of the bottles such as.
Magnum
Jeroboam
Methuselah
Salmanazar
Balthazar
Nebuchadnezzar
It's not champagne as such that will be allowed to be sold in 568 ml bottles, and I doubt whether champagne producers have any desire to do so both for the reasons you state, plus producing for much bigger markets, but all still and sparkling wine - expect 568 ml bottles of the cheaper plonk to appear in the supermarkets.
That would be better than 75 or 25cl, but I still wish they would produce proper half bottles again.
Those were just perfect for a single person. Enough to have a nice drink, but not to either drink too much or see much of it go off.
I imagine the Scottish Government will be pressing to have beer and wine sold in 75ml and 25ml bottles.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
All Labour needs to do is put out some comms explaining how much Sunak's own family would (theoretically) gain from the move. It will be very easy for them to portray the policy as motivated by personal gain and link it back to the PM's own wealth and privilege, which are negatives for him. The world has changed since 2010 - we now live in a world of food banks and stunted children - and I don't think a tax giveaway targeting the rich is the killer move the Tories think it is. Still, they are welcome to try.
Au contraire. Wealth is no longer the simple predictor of voting intention that it was. Put up a list of lefty lawyer, bankers, charity heads, FTSE CEOs and run them in the Red Wall with the word London. Play your cards right and you could be on Tik Tok.
I don't really understand any of that, sorry... Are there a lot of lefty FTSE CEOs?
The propensity of the educated to vote Conservative has collapsed in the past decade. Given the number of senior figures in business who are well educated, the propensity of business leaders to vote Tory has also fallen very sharply.
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
How about letting manufacturers choose what size bottle they want, so long as it is clearly and accurately labelled as such?
Why does it need to be 200, 500, 568 or 700?
If someone wants to sell a bottle in 420ml then so long as it clearly says 420ml then why should that be verboten? Or any other number, just make clear what it is and let the consumer decide.
There is a chicken and egg problem with bottles. Making bottles of any new size is the hard and expensive part. Adjusting machines to fill them is cheap and easy.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
They shouldn't reintroduce it at all.
They should make income tax (including National Insurance) apply to any inheritance so earned and unearned incomes are treated identically.
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
How about letting manufacturers choose what size bottle they want, so long as it is clearly and accurately labelled as such?
Why does it need to be 200, 500, 568 or 700?
If someone wants to sell a bottle in 420ml then so long as it clearly says 420ml then why should that be verboten? Or any other number, just make clear what it is and let the consumer decide.
500ml is a bonus for beer sellers. It's like how we were screwed with metric money. 1d increase became 1p so the increase was 2.4 x whst people thought. 500ml is. 88 of a pint. People think it's a pint.. screwed again
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
He should do something radical for us hard working workers and reduce the top rate of tax from 45p to something more manageable like 30p.
Workers of the world unite.
The first priority should be to increase the personal allowance to £20,000pa 👍
And end the Allowance clawback
Absolutely correct. There should be no effective 60% rate between £100k and £125k.
Maybe instead we have: PA £20,000 and everyone gets a PA 20% on next £50,000 ie £20k to £50k 40% on further £50,000 ie £70 to £120k 50% beyond £120k
Wouldn't raise enough...
It's like the question of why does IR35 exist - let me show you the 60bn reasons..
Permission to laugh slightly hysterically at the idea that, given that there are an awful lot of bits of the public sector that could really do with having money spent on them, tax cuts are a realistic proposition right now?
But that is what today's Telegraph is talking about and has been hinted at multiple times since the Autumn statement that more cuts are coming.
Yep it's insane but it's a problem that Labour will have to deal with and not this Government because after the next election the Tories will not be in power for a very long time...
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
All Labour needs to do is put out some comms explaining how much Sunak's own family would (theoretically) gain from the move. It will be very easy for them to portray the policy as motivated by personal gain and link it back to the PM's own wealth and privilege, which are negatives for him. The world has changed since 2010 - we now live in a world of food banks and stunted children - and I don't think a tax giveaway targeting the rich is the killer move the Tories think it is. Still, they are welcome to try.
Au contraire. Wealth is no longer the simple predictor of voting intention that it was. Put up a list of lefty lawyer, bankers, charity heads, FTSE CEOs and run them in the Red Wall with the word London. Play your cards right and you could be on Tik Tok.
I don't really understand any of that, sorry... Are there a lot of lefty FTSE CEOs?
The propensity of the educated to vote Conservative has collapsed in the past decade. Given the number of senior figures in business who are well educated, the propensity of business leaders to vote Tory has also fallen very sharply.
The propensity of anyone of working age to vote Conservative has collapsed.
Start with that observation, and a lot of other things make more sense.
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
All Labour needs to do is put out some comms explaining how much Sunak's own family would (theoretically) gain from the move. It will be very easy for them to portray the policy as motivated by personal gain and link it back to the PM's own wealth and privilege, which are negatives for him. The world has changed since 2010 - we now live in a world of food banks and stunted children - and I don't think a tax giveaway targeting the rich is the killer move the Tories think it is. Still, they are welcome to try.
Au contraire. Wealth is no longer the simple predictor of voting intention that it was. Put up a list of lefty lawyer, bankers, charity heads, FTSE CEOs and run them in the Red Wall with the word London. Play your cards right and you could be on Tik Tok.
I don't really understand any of that, sorry... Are there a lot of lefty FTSE CEOs?
The propensity of the educated to vote Conservative has collapsed in the past decade. Given the number of senior figures in business who are well educated, the propensity of business leaders to vote Tory has also fallen very sharply.
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
How about letting manufacturers choose what size bottle they want, so long as it is clearly and accurately labelled as such?
Why does it need to be 200, 500, 568 or 700?
If someone wants to sell a bottle in 420ml then so long as it clearly says 420ml then why should that be verboten? Or any other number, just make clear what it is and let the consumer decide.
There is a chicken and egg problem with bottles. Making bottles of any new size is the hard and expensive part. Filling them is cheap and easy.
Precisely, so let the market sort it out.
Most manufacturers will go for a standard size because that is sensible.
If some choose to go for a unique size, because there's either demand for it or as a gimmick, then let them.
Free choice. The only law should be honest labelling.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
They shouldn't reintroduce it at all.
They should make income tax (including National Insurance) apply to any inheritance so earned and unearned incomes are treated identically.
Which was the point I was making - if you remove inheritance tax, such an option becomes available instead...
It also shows how stupid Rishi is because surely someone with a political clue would realise the consequences of removing something could be the next version is very different...
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
He should do something radical for us hard working workers and reduce the top rate of tax from 45p to something more manageable like 30p.
Workers of the world unite.
The first priority should be to increase the personal allowance to £20,000pa 👍
And end the Allowance clawback
Absolutely correct. There should be no effective 60% rate between £100k and £125k.
Maybe instead we have: PA £20,000 and everyone gets a PA 20% on next £50,000 ie £20k to £50k 40% on further £50,000 ie £70 to £120k 50% beyond £120k
Wouldn't raise enough...
It's like the question of why does IR35 exist - let me show you the 60bn reasons..
The problem with the cliff edge at £100,000 is it encourages employees to salary sacrifice into their pensions in order to get their taxable income back below the threshold. Ironically, this costs the Treasury even more because of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions (and in some cases, child benefits).
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
Isn't Rishi's wealth mostly offshore, so taxable there rather than here?
In any case it wouldn't be Rishi paying the tax if he is dead.
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
All Labour needs to do is put out some comms explaining how much Sunak's own family would (theoretically) gain from the move. It will be very easy for them to portray the policy as motivated by personal gain and link it back to the PM's own wealth and privilege, which are negatives for him. The world has changed since 2010 - we now live in a world of food banks and stunted children - and I don't think a tax giveaway targeting the rich is the killer move the Tories think it is. Still, they are welcome to try.
Au contraire. Wealth is no longer the simple predictor of voting intention that it was. Put up a list of lefty lawyer, bankers, charity heads, FTSE CEOs and run them in the Red Wall with the word London. Play your cards right and you could be on Tik Tok.
I don't really understand any of that, sorry... Are there a lot of lefty FTSE CEOs?
The propensity of the educated to vote Conservative has collapsed in the past decade. Given the number of senior figures in business who are well educated, the propensity of business leaders to vote Tory has also fallen very sharply.
Tax cuts would be welcome for FTSE CEOs. They are now so poor that they have to share that one sole suit they own with Jeremy Corbyn. You know, the one in which a mini SKS lives in the pocket
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
They shouldn't reintroduce it at all.
They should make income tax (including National Insurance) apply to any inheritance so earned and unearned incomes are treated identically.
I largely agree but foresee a few issues:
How would you propose dealing with the not uncommon situation where a parent leaves their residence to an adult child who has been their carer. Presumably house has to be sold to pay the income tax charge which for a £500k house would result in a £225k tax and NI bill for the child, who will have to move and hope to find somewhere else for £275k.
Similarly, with business sales, including farms.
I don't say these issues are insurmountable but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
I fear you give them too much credit. Sunak has the political foresight of a goldfish.
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
He should do something radical for us hard working workers and reduce the top rate of tax from 45p to something more manageable like 30p.
Workers of the world unite.
The first priority should be to increase the personal allowance to £20,000pa 👍
And end the Allowance clawback
Absolutely correct. There should be no effective 60% rate between £100k and £125k.
Maybe instead we have: PA £20,000 and everyone gets a PA 20% on next £50,000 ie £20k to £50k 40% on further £50,000 ie £70 to £120k 50% beyond £120k
Wouldn't raise enough...
It's like the question of why does IR35 exist - let me show you the 60bn reasons..
The problem with the cliff edge at £100,000 is it encourages employees to salary sacrifice into their pensions in order to get their taxable income back below the threshold. Ironically, this costs the Treasury even more because of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions (and in some cases, child benefits).
There are 2 barriers - 1 at £50,000 or so (Child Benefit) and the other at £100,000 or so.
The more important one to fix is that £50,000 one - because that really does penalise 1 working parent families.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
They shouldn't reintroduce it at all.
They should make income tax (including National Insurance) apply to any inheritance so earned and unearned incomes are treated identically.
I largely agree but foresee a few issues:
How would you propose dealing with the not uncommon situation where a parent leaves their residence to an adult child who has been their carer. Presumably house has to be sold to pay the income tax charge which for a £500k house would result in a £225k tax and NI bill for the child, who will have to move and hope to find somewhere else for £275k.
Similarly, with business sales, including farms.
I don't say these issues are insurmountable but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
If someone inherits a house or a business they ought to be able to get a loan to pay the tax, or sell it and pay the tax.
Just as anyone working for a living has to pay their taxes, even if they want to get a house or a business with their wages.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
Isn't Rishi's wealth mostly offshore, so taxable there rather than here?
In any case it wouldn't be Rishi paying the tax if he is dead.
Sunak and his wife stand to inherit half of her parent's $4.1bn though.
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
He should do something radical for us hard working workers and reduce the top rate of tax from 45p to something more manageable like 30p.
Workers of the world unite.
The first priority should be to increase the personal allowance to £20,000pa 👍
And end the Allowance clawback
Absolutely correct. There should be no effective 60% rate between £100k and £125k.
Maybe instead we have: PA £20,000 and everyone gets a PA 20% on next £50,000 ie £20k to £50k 40% on further £50,000 ie £70 to £120k 50% beyond £120k
Wouldn't raise enough...
It's like the question of why does IR35 exist - let me show you the 60bn reasons..
The problem with the cliff edge at £100,000 is it encourages employees to salary sacrifice into their pensions in order to get their taxable income back below the threshold. Ironically, this costs the Treasury even more because of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions (and in some cases, child benefits).
There are 2 barriers - 1 at £50,000 or so (Child Benefit) and the other at £100,000 or so.
The more important one to fix is that £50,000 one - because that really does penalise 1 working parent families.
There are 3 barriers - 1 when on Universal Credit, 1 at £50k and the other at £100k.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
I fear you give them too much credit. Sunak has the political foresight of a goldfish.
Oh he's a grade A idiot. You can see it in virtually example where he seems to be listening to someone with a half baked idea that solves an immediate issue without pausing to find out the long term consequences.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
Isn't Rishi's wealth mostly offshore, so taxable there rather than here?
In any case it wouldn't be Rishi paying the tax if he is dead.
Sunak and his wife stand to inherit half of her parent's $4.1bn though.
Presumably via whatever system India runs for inheritance taxation?
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
They shouldn't reintroduce it at all.
They should make income tax (including National Insurance) apply to any inheritance so earned and unearned incomes are treated identically.
I largely agree but foresee a few issues:
How would you propose dealing with the not uncommon situation where a parent leaves their residence to an adult child who has been their carer. Presumably house has to be sold to pay the income tax charge which for a £500k house would result in a £225k tax and NI bill for the child, who will have to move and hope to find somewhere else for £275k.
Similarly, with business sales, including farms.
I don't say these issues are insurmountable but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
If someone inherits a house or a business they ought to be able to get a loan to pay the tax, or sell it and pay the tax.
Just as anyone working for a living has to pay their taxes, even if they want to get a house or a business with their wages.
I'd support that but I can see the Mail, Telegraph etc. screaming blue murder and making it an undeliverable policy (see also May's social care proposals).
Maybe allow an inheritance to be spread over 5 years for income tax purposes?
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
They shouldn't reintroduce it at all.
They should make income tax (including National Insurance) apply to any inheritance so earned and unearned incomes are treated identically.
I largely agree but foresee a few issues:
How would you propose dealing with the not uncommon situation where a parent leaves their residence to an adult child who has been their carer. Presumably house has to be sold to pay the income tax charge which for a £500k house would result in a £225k tax and NI bill for the child, who will have to move and hope to find somewhere else for £275k.
Similarly, with business sales, including farms.
I don't say these issues are insurmountable but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
If someone inherits a house or a business they ought to be able to get a loan to pay the tax, or sell it and pay the tax.
Just as anyone working for a living has to pay their taxes, even if they want to get a house or a business with their wages.
I'd support that but I can see the Mail, Telegraph etc. screaming blue murder and making it an undeliverable policy (see also May's social care proposals).
Maybe allow an inheritance to be spread over 5 years for income tax purposes?
I'd have no objections to that, though I also believe in fixing our NYC skyline of taxation and going to flat taxes instead so it also wouldn't make any net difference if we had flat taxes.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
Isn't Rishi's wealth mostly offshore, so taxable there rather than here?
In any case it wouldn't be Rishi paying the tax if he is dead.
I'm not sure that calling attention to the offshore nature of Sunak's millions totally kills the story from a Conservative point of view.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Iirc Pol Roger looked at reintroducing pints but could not find a bottle manufacturer to play ball at a reasonable price.
A 500ml bottle might find a decent market in the EU, though.
Unlikely - the 375ml bottle is common place and fulfils the same need - 375ml is 2/3 glasses of sparkling wine depending on how generous the serving is..
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
And the number of people suffering from too much month at the end of their money has gone up under May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It’s not the concept of a food bank that is the problem, it’s the increasing numbers needing them.
2013: Trussel Trust starts giving large volumes of food parcels.
2013: Wonga sees profits half.
And some here still say that's a bad thing - pathetic!
Some people will always face too much month at the end of their money, when they do I'd far rather they have a charity to turn to than a predatory loan shark to turn to. That should be celebrated, not complained about.
Food banks replacing loan sharks when people have too much month at the end of their money is one of the absolute best things that happened under the Coalition.
I can’t see any way that could possibly go wrong for him.
Yes, it would be another disastrous policy decision. There are far better ways of reducing the tax burden than abolishing a tax that only a few percent of people actually pay.
The attractive thing about abolishing IHT is that it’s quite cheap to do. A few billion a year, easily paid for through a bit of fiscal drag. It’s also an unpopular tax, for some reason. So I think something like this will happen.
If it were me I’d reduce the rate to 20% and restrict some of the reliefs.
One thing they’d almost certainly do if they abolish IHT completely is remove the CGT step up for inherited assets.
The one thing that the Tories haven't thought about is that if you abolish Inheritance tax, when Labour reintroduce it (because after all it was done because Rishi is worth £700m and doesn't want to pay the tax on it) is that they could reintroduce it in a very different format to how it is currently bodged.
They shouldn't reintroduce it at all.
They should make income tax (including National Insurance) apply to any inheritance so earned and unearned incomes are treated identically.
I largely agree but foresee a few issues:
How would you propose dealing with the not uncommon situation where a parent leaves their residence to an adult child who has been their carer. Presumably house has to be sold to pay the income tax charge which for a £500k house would result in a £225k tax and NI bill for the child, who will have to move and hope to find somewhere else for £275k.
Similarly, with business sales, including farms.
I don't say these issues are insurmountable but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
If someone inherits a house or a business they ought to be able to get a loan to pay the tax, or sell it and pay the tax.
Just as anyone working for a living has to pay their taxes, even if they want to get a house or a business with their wages.
I'd support that but I can see the Mail, Telegraph etc. screaming blue murder and making it an undeliverable policy (see also May's social care proposals).
Maybe allow an inheritance to be spread over 5 years for income tax purposes?
I don't think it would be a manifesto commitment, more something introduced quietly in a subsequent election. I said a while back that removing Inheritance tax prior to an election would be a very foolish thing to do - it really needs to be an electoral aspiration.
Heck the phrase "Reform" inheritance tax would cover it, equally "reform" Income tax covers a lot of options while sounding perfectly innocent...
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Iirc Pol Roger looked at reintroducing pints but could not find a bottle manufacturer to play ball at a reasonable price.
A 500ml bottle might find a decent market in the EU, though.
Unlikely - the 375ml bottle is common place and fulfils the same need - 375ml is 2/3 glasses of sparkling wine depending on how generous the serving is..
It's almost half way between a half and a full bottle, so it would cater for a different market - and it's a nice round number, already produced in volume fur beer.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
And the number of people suffering from too much month at the end of their money has gone up under May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It’s not the concept of a food bank that is the problem, it’s the increasing numbers needing them.
I'm not denying that's the case, and I don't support the Tories, but what evidence do you have for that?
Remember Wonga were still in business until 2019.
Supply of food parcels only measures how much people have donated, not how much demand there has been.
2013: Trussel Trust starts giving large volumes of food parcels.
2013: Wonga sees profits half.
And some here still say that's a bad thing - pathetic!
Some people will always face too much month at the end of their money, when they do I'd far rather they have a charity to turn to than a predatory loan shark to turn to. That should be celebrated, not complained about.
Food banks replacing loan sharks when people have too much month at the end of their money is one of the absolute best things that happened under the Coalition.
Loan sharks still exist though - the only thing that has changed is that the market for legal firms who catered for that sort of market has somewhat disappeared (and sadly not been replaced by credit unions).
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
And the number of people suffering from too much month at the end of their money has gone up under May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It’s not the concept of a food bank that is the problem, it’s the increasing numbers needing them.
And how much has that to do with people losing jobs during Covid? Or hitting the incredibly high energy costs following ther Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Look me in the eye and tell me that if Labour had won the election in 2017, things would be materially different for those with too much month at the end of their money. The governing party has faced a hellish period of government, whatever party had been in office. (Although, if Corbyn had won in 2017, he would likely have maxxed out the nation's credit cards before Covid and then the cost of living crisis hit. It does not bear thinking about....)
The one I wanted was for beer to be sold in pints in shops and stores, rather than cans and bottles always being this 500ml nonsense.
Yes, I don't recall the consultation either. Only a percentage quoted, no absolute numbers. Smells like a hundredweight of fish to me or 0.05080234t if you prefer.
I partook in this consultation.
8) The consultation ran from 3 June to 26 August and we received 101,108 responses. 170 responses were considered as void, therefore, in total we analysed 100,938 responses. Responses were marked as void when they were either blank, duplicated, or had technical errors that prevented them from being viewed.
Out of the responses we analysed, we identified 93,041 as being from consumers, 4,718 from businesses and 3,179 from academia, healthcare, government and trading standards, and other organisations.
The questions were hilariously biased in favour of Imperial units, so the consultation coming out so clearly for metric is quite some defeat.
I wasn't aware of it, and I'm a huge fan of Imperial and certainly would have made my views known had i known, whilst lots of pb'ers who are pro metric and pro Brussels were.
Feels a bit voodoo to me. That said this consultation is probably 20 years too late and the horse on British weights and measures has probably bolted.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
And the number of people suffering from too much month at the end of their money has gone up under May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It’s not the concept of a food bank that is the problem, it’s the increasing numbers needing them.
And how much has that to do with people losing jobs during Covid? Or hitting the incredibly high energy costs following ther Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Look me in the eye and tell me that if Labour had won the election in 2017, things would be materially different for those with too much month at the end of their money. The governing party has faced a hellish period of government, whatever party had been in office. (Although, if Corbyn had won in 2017, he would likely have maxxed out the nation's credit cards before Covid and then the cost of living crisis hit. It does not bear thinking about....)
Which is why talk of any tax cuts while running a £116 billion annual deficit is absurd.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
What sort of uncouth chav drinks champagne by the pint?
Champagne is so classy because of the name of the bottles such as.
Magnum
Jeroboam
Methuselah
Salmanazar
Balthaza
Nebuchadnezzar
They didn't ask me.
The one I wanted was for beer to be sold in pints in shops and stores, rather than cans and bottles always being this 500ml nonsense.
There was some discussion of it on here at the time, which is when I added my vote to the 98.7%.
Easily missed though.
You'd think JRM would have been able to drum up more than 403 votes for Imperial from the 'Silent Majority'.
Well, yes.
Even a cursory look at polling would suggest at the very least 15% would be in favour (the most pro UKIP and skewed to the older generation) and 98.7% suggests there's an absolute national consensus in every respect, which we know not to be the case.
Smells very much like an organised campaign to me, not that I think there'd be a latent majority for my point of view, of course.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
I really wish that journalists would ask the follow up question of "And how does this idea grow the economy?"
It's the same item just packaged slightly differently (and at a higher cost) because all logistics are based on 750ml bottles.
Yes, it could be because of secondary order effects - I.e. for packaging and logistics purposes it becomes harder to bottle and dispatch beer, for example, in pint sized cans whereas decanting it from a keg is neither here nor there.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
What sort of uncouth chav drinks champagne by the pint?
Champagne is so classy because of the name of the bottles such as.
Magnum
Jeroboam
Methuselah
Salmanazar
Balthaza
Nebuchadnezzar
They didn't ask me.
The one I wanted was for beer to be sold in pints in shops and stores, rather than cans and bottles always being this 500ml nonsense.
There was some discussion of it on here at the time, which is when I added my vote to the 98.7%.
Easily missed though.
You'd think JRM would have been able to drum up more than 403 votes for Imperial from the 'Silent Majority'.
Well, yes.
Even a cursory look at polling would suggest at the very least 15% would be in favour (the most pro UKIP and skewed to the older generation) and 98.7% suggests there's an absolute national consensus in every respect, which we know not to be the case.
Smells very much like an organised campaign to me, not that I think there'd be a latent majority for my point of view, of course.
Not sure about an organised campaign but the set up of such a survey is clearly going to favour those who use the internet and social media. My 91 yo father-in-law was effectively excluded as he's never used a PC in his life. (I asked him actually, his response was derisory 'haven't they got more important things to worry about?')
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
What sort of uncouth chav drinks champagne by the pint?
Champagne is so classy because of the name of the bottles such as.
Magnum
Jeroboam
Methuselah
Salmanazar
Balthaza
Nebuchadnezzar
They didn't ask me.
The one I wanted was for beer to be sold in pints in shops and stores, rather than cans and bottles always being this 500ml nonsense.
We were all asked; it was up to us whether we replied. I am pleased to be one of the majority
Yet again, another pro EU Lib commented.
Was this orchestrated by FBPE crew on Twitter?
No.
FWIW I was happy for both metric and imperial to be used rather than one of them to be exclusive but wanted it to be left to the retailer to make the choice.
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
I really wish that journalists would ask the follow up question of "And how does this idea grow the economy?"
It's the same item just packaged slightly differently (and at a higher cost) because all logistics are based on 750ml bottles.
Yes, it could be because of secondary order effects - I.e. for packaging and logistics purposes it becomes harder to bottle and dispatch beer, for example, in pint sized cans whereas decanting it from a keg is neither here nor there.
As i said earlier - cheaper wine that is delivered in bulk and bottled in the UK could be packaged up in smaller bottles but it would only work if multiple supermarkets went for it - which they won't because it doesn't work
It's a solution looking for a problem in a world that is very different to the 1940s when logistic efficiency wasn't that important.
No10 plans to end inheritance tax in spring ahead of election
PM hopes spring giveaway will increase chances as Labour prepares for early vote
Downing Street is considering axing inheritance tax in three months’ time in a pre-election giveaway to boost Rishi Sunak’s chances of victory.
The move is one of a handful of major tax cuts that have been discussed by senior figures in Number 10.
The Prime Minister has ordered a “gear change” on tax, having made bringing down inflation, rather than reducing the tax burden, the priority early in his premiership.
Other cuts being considered include increasing the threshold at which people start paying the 40 per cent rate of income tax, and reducing the basic 20 per cent rate.
But scrapping inheritance tax is the least likely of the three moves to be matched by Labour – potentially creating the tax “dividing line” craved by Tory election strategists.
He should do something radical for us hard working workers and reduce the top rate of tax from 45p to something more manageable like 30p.
Workers of the world unite.
The first priority should be to increase the personal allowance to £20,000pa 👍
And end the Allowance clawback
Absolutely correct. There should be no effective 60% rate between £100k and £125k.
Maybe instead we have: PA £20,000 and everyone gets a PA 20% on next £50,000 ie £20k to £50k 40% on further £50,000 ie £70 to £120k 50% beyond £120k
Wouldn't raise enough...
It's like the question of why does IR35 exist - let me show you the 60bn reasons..
The problem with the cliff edge at £100,000 is it encourages employees to salary sacrifice into their pensions in order to get their taxable income back below the threshold. Ironically, this costs the Treasury even more because of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions (and in some cases, child benefits).
There are 2 barriers - 1 at £50,000 or so (Child Benefit) and the other at £100,000 or so.
The more important one to fix is that £50,000 one - because that really does penalise 1 working parent families.
There are 3 barriers - 1 when on Universal Credit, 1 at £50k and the other at £100k.
Mr. Boy, food banks started under Blair. They expanded under every PM until at least Cameron and probably since him too. Given that covers boom, bust, slow recovery, pandemic, and now, that implies policy is having minimal impact on their proliferation.
It's everything to do with available money - and an awful lot of people are finding that they have a lot of month left when the money has ran out.
In many cases it's actually nearly all the month speaking to people I know who volunteer at Foodbanks
And something definitely started to go wrong as soon as the coalition policies started to take effect - Can't however say whether it was austerity or DWP starting to sanction people given kick off point.
Go wrong? Or go right?
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Workhouses? Don't give them ideas.
I am old enough to remember when "gulags for slags" was a Labour policy.
Indeed, that's at the same time as when people with too much month at the end of their money were going to Wonga, who were advertising prolifically on the TV and the Radio, was it not?
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Wonga went out of business because of government regulation rather than competition from foodbanks.
Yes they did, and where did people turn to when that happened?
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
I have no problem with foodbanks, and donate to the Trussell Trust each year. People need to eat.
A lot of the uptake of foodbanks is driven by the harsh sanctions for those on benefits, another hostile environment.
I would much rather see a world where neither Wonga nor foodbanks were necessary.
That's like saying you want world without rain.
Are you going to abolish people having life changes? Unexpected bills? Personal emergencies?
There will always be reasons why people face unexpected hardships. Personally my car broke down a few weeks ago and the bill to repair it would have been over £500, which is more than most people have in discretionary spending month to month.
Fortunately I was in a position where I could cope, I was able to take out a loan to get a new car instead, but for others an unexpected £500 bill especially but not just approaching Christmas would have been traumatic - I'd far rather people be able to turn to a food bank at that point to cope, rather than a loan shark.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
The one I wanted was for beer to be sold in pints in shops and stores, rather than cans and bottles always being this 500ml nonsense.
Yes, I don't recall the consultation either. Only a percentage quoted, no absolute numbers. Smells like a hundredweight of fish to me or 0.05080234t if you prefer.
I partook in this consultation.
8) The consultation ran from 3 June to 26 August and we received 101,108 responses. 170 responses were considered as void, therefore, in total we analysed 100,938 responses. Responses were marked as void when they were either blank, duplicated, or had technical errors that prevented them from being viewed.
Out of the responses we analysed, we identified 93,041 as being from consumers, 4,718 from businesses and 3,179 from academia, healthcare, government and trading standards, and other organisations.
The questions were hilariously biased in favour of Imperial units, so the consultation coming out so clearly for metric is quite some defeat.
I wasn't aware of it, and I'm a huge fan of Imperial and certainly would have made my views known had i known, whilst lots of pb'ers who are pro metric and pro Brussels were.
Feels a bit voodoo to me. That said this consultation is probably 20 years too late and the horse on British weights and measures has probably bolted.
Any consultation like this is going to fall victim to who responds. It won't be a statistically valid sample and it won't be big enough to be representative. The important things are:
1 The government announcement chose to highlight the percentages- they didn't have to do that, and it didn't follow entirely naturally from the questions asked in the first place.
2 The government put this announcement out during Twixtmas. That's Burying Bad News 101.
Because ultimately, it was another Brexit promise that never really made sense. Ultimately, you have to have a shared standard across a nation (But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, as it says in Deuteronomy) and the basis of that standard has already been metric for decades.
It's not even a question of what's better, so much as "if it's not necessary to change, it's necessary not to change", which is a fairly decent conservative principle.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
You're right, we had loan sharks like Wonga instead.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
I have the impression that some people care more about the existence of food banks than about alleviating hunger or eliminating food waste. They'd rather people went hungry as long as it was out of sight.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
You're right, we had loan sharks like Wonga instead.
That's worse. 🤦♂️
The explosion of food banks is not because of that.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
Let's post the graph again - because Bart seems to be talking about the initial growth in 2012/13 and 13/14 not the later increase in 2019 onwards.
Now the spike in 2020/21 is obviously connected to Covid and the impact that had on people's finances but it doesn't explain the continual use in 21/22 and 22/23...
Sunak/Hunt would be bonkers to abolish IHT at the next budget, and I don't think they will. It looks to me as if it's just the Daily Telegraph trying to bounce them into it - their headline says 'plans to...' but in the article it is 'considering'.
I can't imagine why a newspaper read largely by old, wealthy Tories would be promoting such a policy. Baffling.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
Let's post the graph again - because Bart seems to be talking about the initial growth in 2012/13 and 13/14 not the later increase in 2019 onwards.
Now the spike in 2020/21 is obviously connected to Covid and the impact that had on people's finances but it doesn't explain the continual use in 21/22 and 22/23...
Firstly I'm not supporting this government and dislike Sunak so don't take this as defending this Government as I'm not.
However ... all growth is a good thing, not a bad one. The number of food parcels given out is a measure of total donations, not total demand, demand is infinite it is donations which is finite. Unless you believe food banks were previously sending donations to landfill, whatever is donated will be handed out, so all you're measuring is how charitable people feel.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Rishi Sunak has abandoned Boris Johnson’s signature Brexit “dividend” of allowing British shops to once again sell products in pounds and ounces.
In an announcement slipped out quietly over Christmas, the Department for Business and Trade said that ministers had dropped plans to bring back imperial measurements after 98.7 per cent of people opposed the move in a government consultation.
Instead they would make a far more limited change and allow the reintroduction of Winston Churchill’s favoured pint bottles of champagne, which were banned by the EU.
What sort of uncouth chav drinks champagne by the pint?
Champagne is so classy because of the name of the bottles such as.
Magnum
Jeroboam
Methuselah
Salmanazar
Balthazar
Nebuchadnezzar
Those names actually apply to any wine in large format. Magnums of wine age noticeably differently to the regular bottles. Lunch yesterday involved a magnum of red and a magnum of white.
Winston Churchill liked pint bottles of champagne - which was a standard size back then.
You get 4 glasses from a pint.
Pol Roger were talking about bringing back a pint bottle. But dropped the plans, a year or 2 back.
Sunak/Hunt would be bonkers to abolish IHT at the next budget, and I don't think they will. It looks to me as if it's just the Daily Telegraph trying to bounce them into it - their headline says 'plans to...' but in the article it is 'considering'.
I can't imagine why a newspaper read largely by old, wealthy Tories would be promoting such a policy. Baffling.
Because they are bright enough to know it's now or never but not bright enough to know that the consequence of removing it could be Labour simply calling it income (or a capital gain) and applying income tax to it...
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
Let's post the graph again - because Bart seems to be talking about the initial growth in 2012/13 and 13/14 not the later increase in 2019 onwards.
Now the spike in 2020/21 is obviously connected to Covid and the impact that had on people's finances but it doesn't explain the continual use in 21/22 and 22/23...
One thing to consider is that you used to be able to get emergency advances from the Social Fund. Jobcentres did great business with these, normally Fridays were busy days especially before bank holidays. Many people would claim they needed them to feed their children as that was an automatic acceptance. You haven't been able to get them for ?10 years or so, so that will be partially responsible for the growth in food bank use. Also, there was a time when food banks didn't exist in most places, so people didn't use them. Also rumour has it of people regularly using food banks who don't actually need them.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
You're right, we had loan sharks like Wonga instead.
That's worse. 🤦♂️
The explosion of food banks is not because of that.
Some analysis from the people who run the food banks;
This isn't about the late unlamented Wonga any more;
The rising cost of living has pushed figures even higher this year, but the scale of need seen in the first half of this year reflects the significant year on year growth we have seen in the last five years and beyond. If we look back longer term, the record level of need seen so far this year is more than double (116%) the number of parcels distributed by food banks in the Trussell Trust network compared to the same period five years ago in 2018. This significant growth in need is higher for children, with the number of parcels provided for them increasing by 121% over the five-year period between 2018 and 2023...
Food banks are stepping in to support people who can’t afford to buy food, and other essentials for themselves. However, food banks are neither the right nor sustainable response to people going without essentials because their incomes are too low. The Trussell Trust’s long-term goal to end the need for food banks is one that has the support of the public. Polling by YouGov on behalf of the Trussell Trust suggests that the public are increasingly concerned with issues related to poverty and hunger in the UK and the majority (79%) think that food banks should not be needed in the UK.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
Let's post the graph again - because Bart seems to be talking about the initial growth in 2012/13 and 13/14 not the later increase in 2019 onwards.
Now the spike in 2020/21 is obviously connected to Covid and the impact that had on people's finances but it doesn't explain the continual use in 21/22 and 22/23...
Firstly I'm not supporting this government and dislike Sunak so don't take this as defending this Government as I'm not.
However ... all growth is a good thing, not a bad one. The number of food parcels given out is a measure of total donations, not total demand, demand is infinite it is donations which is finite. Unless you believe food banks were previously sending donations to landfill, whatever is donated will be handed out, so all you're measuring is how charitable people feel.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
The problem there is that you are looking at averages / medians (it doesn't say) and life / income isn't distributed equally...
Remember we are in an era of supposedly full employment yet foodbank usage is way higher than it used to be - so while you claim people are better off that isn't true of everyone.
And from what I hear from those operating food banks donations are down because those who donate are finding things tough...
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
You're right, we had loan sharks like Wonga instead.
That's worse. 🤦♂️
The explosion of food banks is not because of that.
Yes it is. 🤦♂️
The two are inextricably linked.
People have learnt about them and donate to them now, so now people have an alternative to turn to when they struggle instead of turning to debt.
Private debt levels and debt problems have fallen since Labour left office, as people who are struggling are able to turn to donations from our big society instead of predatory loan sharks to get them to their next payday.
That is a great thing to be celebrated. If Labour win the next election, I hope donations and thus parcels given out continue to rise. It would be a great shame if the reverse happened.
‘Pint’ size wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever thanks to new freedoms from leaving the European Union Still and sparkling wine to be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml ‘pint’ sizes in 2024 900 British vineyards set to benefit across the country from new freedoms
Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business Kevin Hollinrake said: "Innovation, freedom and choice – that’s what today’s announcement gives to producers and consumers alike.
Our exit from the EU was all about moments just like this, where we can seize new opportunities and provide a real boost to our great British wineries and further growing the economy."
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
Let's post the graph again - because Bart seems to be talking about the initial growth in 2012/13 and 13/14 not the later increase in 2019 onwards.
Now the spike in 2020/21 is obviously connected to Covid and the impact that had on people's finances but it doesn't explain the continual use in 21/22 and 22/23...
Firstly I'm not supporting this government and dislike Sunak so don't take this as defending this Government as I'm not.
However ... all growth is a good thing, not a bad one. The number of food parcels given out is a measure of total donations, not total demand, demand is infinite it is donations which is finite. Unless you believe food banks were previously sending donations to landfill, whatever is donated will be handed out, so all you're measuring is how charitable people feel.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
The problem there is that you are looking at averages / medians (it doesn't say) and life / income isn't distributed equally...
Remember we are in an era of supposedly full employment yet foodbank usage is way higher than it used to be - so while you claim people are better off that isn't true of everyone.
And from what I hear from those operating food banks donations are down because those who donate are finding things tough...
Food bank usage is a measure of food bank donations, not food bank demand.
If donations were down, then usage would be down.
Wonga were still giving out loans only four years ago. Yes they massively started to decline in 2013, when food banks became an alternative, but until a few years ago people were still turning to them and other predators. The market for them has collapsed, which is a good thing.
There is nothing bad about rising food bank levels. It is a great thing to be celebrated that people with too much month at the end of their money have a healthy alternative available instead of being forced into the hands of disreputable predators.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it because they are at risk of going hungry in one of the richest countries in the world is a good thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
You're right, we had loan sharks like Wonga instead.
That's worse. 🤦♂️
The explosion of food banks is not because of that.
Some analysis from the people who run the food banks;
This isn't about the late unlamented Wonga any more;
The rising cost of living has pushed figures even higher this year, but the scale of need seen in the first half of this year reflects the significant year on year growth we have seen in the last five years and beyond. If we look back longer term, the record level of need seen so far this year is more than double (116%) the number of parcels distributed by food banks in the Trussell Trust network compared to the same period five years ago in 2018. This significant growth in need is higher for children, with the number of parcels provided for them increasing by 121% over the five-year period between 2018 and 2023...
Food banks are stepping in to support people who can’t afford to buy food, and other essentials for themselves. However, food banks are neither the right nor sustainable response to people going without essentials because their incomes are too low. The Trussell Trust’s long-term goal to end the need for food banks is one that has the support of the public. Polling by YouGov on behalf of the Trussell Trust suggests that the public are increasingly concerned with issues related to poverty and hunger in the UK and the majority (79%) think that food banks should not be needed in the UK.
Self-fulfilling prophecy. Demand has to equal supply, when it comes to what is given out.
Unless they were previously sending most food donated to landfill, in 2018 their number of donations would have matched their number of parcels given out.
So if their parcels given out have doubled, then that's because their donations have doubled. They then say demand has doubled, because supply has doubled, which then encourages more donations, which then enables more to be handed out etc
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
We never had the level of food bank use we do now under Labour.
You're right, we had loan sharks like Wonga instead.
That's worse. 🤦♂️
The explosion of food banks is not because of that.
Yes it is. 🤦♂️
The two are inextricably linked.
People have learnt about them and donate to them now, so now people have an alternative to turn to when they struggle instead of turning to debt.
Private debt levels and debt problems have fallen since Labour left office, as people who are struggling are able to turn to donations from our big society instead of predatory loan sharks to get them to their next payday.
That is a great thing to be celebrated. If Labour win the next election, I hope donations and thus parcels given out continue to rise. It would be a great shame if the reverse happened.
As I see it there are three things which have, long term, impacted food bank use: 1) consistent below inflation rises in benefits (and also some of the changes made) 2) consistent below inflation rises in public sector pay (especially for the lowest paid) 3) massive increases in housing costs (especially in London)
the lower your pay the more impact each of these has on you.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it is a terrible thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
Anyone who thinks that the distribution of surplus food to people who need it because they are at risk of going hungry in one of the richest countries in the world is a good thing really needs to consider the implications of their politics.
It is a good thing.
People have always had risk. People have always faced hardships or unexpected bills.
In the past, they had to turn to loan sharks, now they don't. That's an unquestioningly good thing.
Comments
It's like the question of why does IR35 exist - let me show you the 60bn reasons..
Cameron's idea was the big society and what's a bigger society than people donating food to help those less fortunate.
If people had too much month at the end of their money prior to 2012 they were turning to the likes of Wonga, after 2012 they were turning to the likes of the Trussel Trust.
That's something to celebrate, not commiserate.
It's the same item just packaged slightly differently (and at a higher cost) because all logistics are based on 750ml bottles.
The demand for free food is effectively infinite, the supply of it is what is finite. If more food parcels are given out, that means that more people are donating to charity, that's a good thing and not a bad one.
And its infinitely better than the payday loan companies like Wonga that proliferated under Blair and Brown.
2012 saw a surge in food donations, yes. It also saw a collapse in payday loans. Coincidence or not?
Which would you rather someone turn to when they have too much month at the end of their money: the Trussel Trust, like under Cameron, or Wonga, like under Blair and Brown?
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/churchill-bulletin/bulletin-078-dec-2014/the-churchill-factor-by-boris-johnson/
Iirc Pol Roger looked at reintroducing pints but could not find a bottle manufacturer to play ball at a reasonable price.
They should make income tax (including National Insurance) apply to any inheritance so earned and unearned incomes are treated identically.
Yep it's insane but it's a problem that Labour will have to deal with and not this Government because after the next election the Tories will not be in power for a very long time...
Start with that observation, and a lot of other things make more sense.
Most manufacturers will go for a standard size because that is sensible.
If some choose to go for a unique size, because there's either demand for it or as a gimmick, then let them.
Free choice. The only law should be honest labelling.
It also shows how stupid Rishi is because surely someone with a political clue would realise the consequences of removing something could be the next version is very different...
In any case it wouldn't be Rishi paying the tax if he is dead.
Tragic.
How would you propose dealing with the not uncommon situation where a parent leaves their residence to an adult child who has been their carer. Presumably house has to be sold to pay the income tax charge which for a £500k house would result in a £225k tax and NI bill for the child, who will have to move and hope to find somewhere else for £275k.
Similarly, with business sales, including farms.
I don't say these issues are insurmountable but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
The more important one to fix is that £50,000 one - because that really does penalise 1 working parent families.
Just as anyone working for a living has to pay their taxes, even if they want to get a house or a business with their wages.
All of them need fixing.
And you see it everywhere - HS2, Rwanda, tax.....
Whatever happened to Wonga? Oh right, they went out of business.
They were clamped down on at around 2013, the same time as the Trussel Trust suddenly started giving out large volumes of food parcels.
Maybe allow an inheritance to be spread over 5 years for income tax purposes?
BBC News - Wonga sees profits more than halve
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29424351
There have always been people suffering from too much month at the end of their money.
In Blair and Brown's day they turned to Wonga.
After Cameron they could turn to Trussel Trust instead.
I know which system I prefer - which do you prefer?
A lot of the uptake of foodbanks is driven by the harsh sanctions for those on benefits, another hostile environment.
I would much rather see a world where neither Wonga nor foodbanks were necessary.
2013: Wonga sees profits half.
And some here still say that's a bad thing - pathetic!
Some people will always face too much month at the end of their money, when they do I'd far rather they have a charity to turn to than a predatory loan shark to turn to. That should be celebrated, not complained about.
Food banks replacing loan sharks when people have too much month at the end of their money is one of the absolute best things that happened under the Coalition.
Heck the phrase "Reform" inheritance tax would cover it, equally "reform" Income tax covers a lot of options while sounding perfectly innocent...
Remember Wonga were still in business until 2019.
Supply of food parcels only measures how much people have donated, not how much demand there has been.
John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, said recent conflicts should be a wake up call to ministers after years of underinvestment
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-pledges-urgent-review-of-britains-defence-capabilities-flwcnjv5l (£££)
Labour would do well to attack Tory defence cuts without getting trapped in the weeds of inter-service rivalry.
Look me in the eye and tell me that if Labour had won the election in 2017, things would be materially different for those with too much month at the end of their money. The governing party has faced a hellish period of government, whatever party had been in office. (Although, if Corbyn had won in 2017, he would likely have maxxed out the nation's credit cards before Covid and then the cost of living crisis hit. It does not bear thinking about....)
Feels a bit voodoo to me. That said this consultation is probably 20 years too late and the horse on British weights and measures has probably bolted.
I want the full pint. Not 88% of it.
Was this orchestrated by FBPE crew on Twitter?
Even a cursory look at polling would suggest at the very least 15% would be in favour (the most pro UKIP and skewed to the older generation) and 98.7% suggests there's an absolute national consensus in every respect, which we know not to be the case.
Smells very much like an organised campaign to me, not that I think there'd be a latent majority for my point of view, of course.
Which I suspect is even more expensive than the 500ml bottles that Brewdog scrapped when they decided that using only cans was easier all round...
FWIW I was happy for both metric and imperial to be used rather than one of them to be exclusive but wanted it to be left to the retailer to make the choice.
Call the election.
It's a solution looking for a problem in a world that is very different to the 1940s when logistic efficiency wasn't that important.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pension-schemes-work-out-your-tapered-annual-allowance
Are you going to abolish people having life changes? Unexpected bills? Personal emergencies?
There will always be reasons why people face unexpected hardships. Personally my car broke down a few weeks ago and the bill to repair it would have been over £500, which is more than most people have in discretionary spending month to month.
Fortunately I was in a position where I could cope, I was able to take out a loan to get a new car instead, but for others an unexpected £500 bill especially but not just approaching Christmas would have been traumatic - I'd far rather people be able to turn to a food bank at that point to cope, rather than a loan shark.
We've never had a situation where people didn't face unexpected hardships. The only thing that's changed is now we help people out better than we did before via charity. That is an unquestioningly good thing.
I have to say I didn’t mind what the unit was when I was necking it with the lads
1 The government announcement chose to highlight the percentages- they didn't have to do that, and it didn't follow entirely naturally from the questions asked in the first place.
2 The government put this announcement out during Twixtmas. That's Burying Bad News 101.
Because ultimately, it was another Brexit promise that never really made sense. Ultimately, you have to have a shared standard across a nation (But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, as it says in Deuteronomy) and the basis of that standard has already been metric for decades.
It's not even a question of what's better, so much as "if it's not necessary to change, it's necessary not to change", which is a fairly decent conservative principle.
The government should mandate oversize glasses with a line.
That's worse. 🤦♂️
Let's post the graph again - because Bart seems to be talking about the initial growth in 2012/13 and 13/14 not the later increase in 2019 onwards.
Now the spike in 2020/21 is obviously connected to Covid and the impact that had on people's finances but it doesn't explain the continual use in 21/22 and 22/23...
I think when you add stuffing, bread sauce, turkey and Christmas pudding into one's stomach it must basically make some sort of human glue inside you.
I can't imagine why a newspaper read largely by old, wealthy Tories would be promoting such a policy. Baffling.
However ... all growth is a good thing, not a bad one. The number of food parcels given out is a measure of total donations, not total demand, demand is infinite it is donations which is finite. Unless you believe food banks were previously sending donations to landfill, whatever is donated will be handed out, so all you're measuring is how charitable people feel.
If people overall were horrendously struggling then the number of donations would have collapsed as people looked after themselves first, which would mean fewer parcels given as there'd be less supply available.
People are less indebted now than they were. I hope donations to charity, and thus parcels handed out, continue to rise under Labour not fall and people have to turn back to debt once more.
Winston Churchill liked pint bottles of champagne - which was a standard size back then.
You get 4 glasses from a pint.
Pol Roger were talking about bringing back a pint bottle. But dropped the plans, a year or 2 back.
https://www.trusselltrust.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/11/MYS-UK-Factsheet-2023.pdf
This isn't about the late unlamented Wonga any more;
The rising cost of living has pushed figures even higher this year, but the scale of need seen in the first half of this year reflects the significant year on year growth we have seen in the last five years and beyond. If we look back longer term, the record level of need seen so far this year is more than double (116%) the number of parcels distributed by food banks in the Trussell Trust network compared to the same period five years ago in 2018. This significant growth in need is higher for children, with the number of parcels provided for them increasing by 121% over the five-year period between 2018 and 2023...
Food banks are stepping in to support people who can’t afford to buy food, and other essentials for themselves. However, food banks are neither the right nor sustainable response to people going without essentials because their incomes are too low.
The Trussell Trust’s long-term goal to end the need for food banks is one that has the support of the public. Polling by YouGov on behalf of the Trussell Trust suggests that the public are increasingly concerned with issues related to poverty and hunger in the UK and the majority (79%) think that food banks should not be needed in the UK.
Remember we are in an era of supposedly full employment yet foodbank usage is way higher than it used to be - so while you claim people are better off that isn't true of everyone.
And from what I hear from those operating food banks donations are down because those who donate are finding things tough...
The two are inextricably linked.
People have learnt about them and donate to them now, so now people have an alternative to turn to when they struggle instead of turning to debt.
Private debt levels and debt problems have fallen since Labour left office, as people who are struggling are able to turn to donations from our big society instead of predatory loan sharks to get them to their next payday.
That is a great thing to be celebrated. If Labour win the next election, I hope donations and thus parcels given out continue to rise. It would be a great shame if the reverse happened.
There is a market for half bottles. And I find the 187ml bottles you can already get useful for cooking.
If donations were down, then usage would be down.
Wonga were still giving out loans only four years ago. Yes they massively started to decline in 2013, when food banks became an alternative, but until a few years ago people were still turning to them and other predators. The market for them has collapsed, which is a good thing.
There is nothing bad about rising food bank levels. It is a great thing to be celebrated that people with too much month at the end of their money have a healthy alternative available instead of being forced into the hands of disreputable predators.
Unless they were previously sending most food donated to landfill, in 2018 their number of donations would have matched their number of parcels given out.
So if their parcels given out have doubled, then that's because their donations have doubled. They then say demand has doubled, because supply has doubled, which then encourages more donations, which then enables more to be handed out etc
1) consistent below inflation rises in benefits (and also some of the changes made)
2) consistent below inflation rises in public sector pay (especially for the lowest paid)
3) massive increases in housing costs (especially in London)
the lower your pay the more impact each of these has on you.
People have always had risk. People have always faced hardships or unexpected bills.
In the past, they had to turn to loan sharks, now they don't. That's an unquestioningly good thing.