George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
I've not (so far) heard anyone talk about Angela Rayner's tax affairs. If anything, the two homes part might have more resonance. The danger is if Keir Starmer sees this as an opportunity to demote her, which he tried once before.
Two homes? Plenty of relationships are in that position - and many married couples have had that as an evolutionary stage of their lives for obvious practical reasons.
Two houses for "obvious practical reasons" ? Married couples ?!
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
I've not (so far) heard anyone talk about Angela Rayner's tax affairs. If anything, the two homes part might have more resonance. The danger is if Keir Starmer sees this as an opportunity to demote her, which he tried once before.
Two homes? Plenty of relationships are in that position - and many married couples have had that as an evolutionary stage of their lives for obvious practical reasons.
Two houses for "obvious practical reasons" ? Married couples ?!
Go on, do explain.
One meets the other, each has their own house to begin with, eventually they move in together permanently, decide one house isn't needed.
Simple as that.
The timings are flexible; and the time allowed before CGT is due on a house that has been a primary residence is another factor. (I don't think they had index linking for CGT any more then, though.)
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
I've not (so far) heard anyone talk about Angela Rayner's tax affairs. If anything, the two homes part might have more resonance. The danger is if Keir Starmer sees this as an opportunity to demote her, which he tried once before.
Isn’t the issue that she was *elected* as deputy leader, so SKS has to live with her?
I don't think Mrs Starmer would countenance that arrangement.
Tough. That’s democracy.
It does seem an odd party rule.
When did the introduce it - I don't recall Foot cohabiting with Healey (though perhaps they just kept it quiet at the time) ?
‘Everyone is terrified of King Gavin’: Newsom’s unchallenged anti-homelessness gambit https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/02/prop-1-ballot-measure-mental-health-battle-00144530 ..Prop 1 will make changes to the Mental Health Services Act, a tax on incomes over a million dollars that was groundbreaking when approved by voters in 2004. It gave counties fairly wide latitude to spend the money on whatever mental health programs they saw fit, with limited coverage for substance use disorders. Newsom has been itching to rewrite the law for years. When he devoted his entire State of the State Address in 2020 to the problem of homelessness, he excoriated counties for hoarding MHSA funds instead of using them to address the crisis.
After being sidetracked by the pandemic, Newsom finally had the chance to tackle the issue last year. Proposition 1 began its path to the ballot as two separate bills. One directed counties to change the way they spend and report their mental health budgets, requiring they spend more on housing and treatment for people in encampments. A companion bond issue committed $6.4 billion to fund new residential mental health and addiction treatment, and housing for veterans. Because voters approved the MHSA in 2004, they would now be required to weigh in on the dense new policy, rechristened the Behavioral Health Services Act...
Using mental health funds to pay for housing. That's what I don't like about American politics: nothing does what it says on the tin.
That's true of just about every ballot proposition. This one is actually clearer in its intentions than most, as it has received a lot of media attention.
The real problem with such measures is that their perverse consequences aren't fully clear at the time, and they can then be very difficult to modify once introduced (see Prop 13, for example).
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
I've not (so far) heard anyone talk about Angela Rayner's tax affairs. If anything, the two homes part might have more resonance. The danger is if Keir Starmer sees this as an opportunity to demote her, which he tried once before.
Two homes? Plenty of relationships are in that position - and many married couples have had that as an evolutionary stage of their lives for obvious practical reasons.
Two houses for "obvious practical reasons" ? Married couples ?!
Go on, do explain.
are you dense?
It's tempting to suggest old Pulpy could be used as armour plate for the Challenger successor, if MoD could ever get off their backsides and organise one. But (a) we all have our off moments and (b) there may be something I have missed, which is saying (a) differently. .
It is nice to pop down to Hampshire occasionally for a bit of outdoor time but every time I do leave thinking that for right now, I am glad to live in London.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
Sunak has an easy way of getting rid of Galloway from Parliament if he wants. One call to the king, and we all get to vote on May 2nd.
There won't be an election in May.
It's needed but won't happen. Sunak will leave it as long as possible.
Sunak will not be in post long after May
I agree that there is likely to be a VONC after the May locals, but he will survive. Only Truss wants the poisoned chalice, and even the Tories are not that daft.
I genuinely don't buy this 'no one will want the poisoned chalice' line.
Say you're Penny Mordaunt for example (other candidates are available)...
You stand and somehow win the leadership from Sunak in June/July. Call an election at the earliest sensible opportunity (end of September?). Lose to a Labour landslide by say 10-15%. You can rightly say 'well that was 20-25% when I took over, so you need to stick with me as LOTO because I can close that gap in one term'. Then, with the economy shafted and multiple other issues facing the country, you have five years of bashing Starmer to get back to at least parity for the 2029 GE.
The flaw with my argument is the Tory members will choose a loon rather than Mordaunt but that won't put off candidates who think they might win a leadership contest. No lack of candidates in may opinion.
Any candidates at this stage would agree to submit themselves to re-election if they lost the GE.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Domicile is very different to residence, which is why the rule is meaningful in the first place. If she was non resident she wouldn’t be taxed on anything other than UK source income anyway.
Domicile is essentially “where are you REALLY from”, but with a tax break attached.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
It's not the Muslim community's fault that so many other British people find the issue too boring to engage with.
I must admit I quite like the idea of people giving up cash/wallets for lent. Very probably few would ever go back to it if they went without for 40 days.
How disciplined do we think the Tories will be during the election campaign? Likewise Labour?
What chance that either party has to disown a candidate during the campaign, as Labour had to disown Ali in Rochdale, and as Sunak has disowned Lee Anderson?
Could we end up with a few seats like Rochdale, where one or the other of the parties regard their officially nominated candidates as persona non grata?
On topic, Galloway is a cynical opportunist, but also a one man band. I don't see him having much impact, and likely won't hold Rochdale.
Though whichever party signs up the Rochdale Independent as their candidate may do well.
Didn't Dead Ringers portray him as a fast talking hypnotist? There's clearly something about his stick that works face to face, but not via mass media, or for very long.
Thank goodness.
He is an incredibly powerful speaker, the best in the HoC. I don't like him one bit but he has oratory skills that MPs generally don't seem to possess anymore, it would be foolish to deny that.
How disciplined do we think the Tories will be during the election campaign? Likewise Labour?
What chance that either party has to disown a candidate during the campaign, as Labour had to disown Ali in Rochdale, and as Sunak has disowned Lee Anderson?
Could we end up with a few seats like Rochdale, where one or the other of the parties regard their officially nominated candidates as persona non grata?
it depends on when it happens. there's going to be a period between the official calling of an election and when nominations close. in that period all local media will be scrutinising the candidates. I remember a Tory candidate being pulled from a Norfolk seat during a general election because of interviews he'd done as a presenter on local radio.
Doesn't mean it won't happen after then but will only have marginal impact (unless it's something gratuitous) as people will be focusing on policies
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
I've not (so far) heard anyone talk about Angela Rayner's tax affairs. If anything, the two homes part might have more resonance. The danger is if Keir Starmer sees this as an opportunity to demote her, which he tried once before.
Two homes? Plenty of relationships are in that position - and many married couples have had that as an evolutionary stage of their lives for obvious practical reasons.
Two houses for "obvious practical reasons" ? Married couples ?!
Go on, do explain.
One meets the other, each has their own house to begin with, eventually they move in together permanently, decide one house isn't needed.
Simple as that.
The timings are flexible; and the time allowed before CGT is due on a house that has been a primary residence is another factor. (I don't think they had index linking for CGT any more then, though.)
Slightly off topic, but I am also recalling the episode below, which came around the height of 'woke'.
How disciplined do we think the Tories will be during the election campaign? Likewise Labour?
What chance that either party has to disown a candidate during the campaign, as Labour had to disown Ali in Rochdale, and as Sunak has disowned Lee Anderson?
Could we end up with a few seats like Rochdale, where one or the other of the parties regard their officially nominated candidates as persona non grata?
How disciplined do we think the Tories will be during the election campaign? Likewise Labour?
What chance that either party has to disown a candidate during the campaign, as Labour had to disown Ali in Rochdale, and as Sunak has disowned Lee Anderson?
Could we end up with a few seats like Rochdale, where one or the other of the parties regard their officially nominated candidates as persona non grata?
My feeling is that Labour will be very disciplined, to an incredibly frustrating and quite boring degree.
I can see the Tories either doing the same or just going completely mad. I am starting to think the latter is the more likely.
Just got to Pets at Home in Altrincham to find it doesn't open at 11. God, apparently, has changed his views to fit those of 21st century sensibilities but is still very firm on the hours during which one can buy cat litter on a Sunday. *insert rant about living in a theocracy*
Jeremy Hunt says he will not put more money into public services.
Whatever the actual advantages of this idea, it is incredibly dumb politics.
"Not put more money into public services" doesn't quite capture it. "Stick by his plans for further acute cuts to public services" would be a more accurate description.
On topic, Galloway is a cynical opportunist, but also a one man band. I don't see him having much impact, and likely won't hold Rochdale.
Though whichever party signs up the Rochdale Independent as their candidate may do well.
Didn't Dead Ringers portray him as a fast talking hypnotist? There's clearly something about his stick that works face to face, but not via mass media, or for very long.
Thank goodness.
He is an incredibly powerful speaker, the best in the HoC. I don't like him one bit but he has oratory skills that MPs generally don't seem to possess anymore, it would be foolish to deny that.
Yes, agreed. See also Boris. There's a trap people often fall into of going from "I strongly dislike person x" to "I deny that person x hasany positive qualities or talents whatsoever"
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
I've not (so far) heard anyone talk about Angela Rayner's tax affairs. If anything, the two homes part might have more resonance. The danger is if Keir Starmer sees this as an opportunity to demote her, which he tried once before.
Two homes? Plenty of relationships are in that position - and many married couples have had that as an evolutionary stage of their lives for obvious practical reasons.
Two houses for "obvious practical reasons" ? Married couples ?!
Go on, do explain.
One meets the other, each has their own house to begin with, eventually they move in together permanently, decide one house isn't needed.
Simple as that.
The timings are flexible; and the time allowed before CGT is due on a house that has been a primary residence is another factor. (I don't think they had index linking for CGT any more then, though.)
Happened to me and I kept my original house and rent it out, making me a bit of an 'accidental' landlord in the parlance.
But I fully expect to pay CGT when I finally sell. This will be on the years of uplift when I wasn't living there and it was rented out.
There used to be a factor knocked off CGT if you were a landlord but that little loophole has been cemented over in recent years.
Isn't the issue with the Red Queen though that she took advantage of buying a council house, a right she plans to get rid off when in office?
On topic, Galloway is a cynical opportunist, but also a one man band. I don't see him having much impact, and likely won't hold Rochdale.
Though whichever party signs up the Rochdale Independent as their candidate may do well.
Didn't Dead Ringers portray him as a fast talking hypnotist? There's clearly something about his stick that works face to face, but not via mass media, or for very long.
Thank goodness.
He is an incredibly powerful speaker, the best in the HoC. I don't like him one bit but he has oratory skills that MPs generally don't seem to possess anymore, it would be foolish to deny that.
Yes, agreed. See also Boris. There's a trap people often fall into of going from "I strongly dislike person x" to "I deny that person x hasany positive qualities or talents whatsoever"
I think Johnson's ability to lie was amazing. It never worked on me but it did on a lot of people and so he was an incredibly effective and successful politician.
But he was always going to end up in the position he was in. The people of London knew EXACTLY what was coming.
Jeremy Hunt says he will not put more money into public services.
Whatever the actual advantages of this idea, it is incredibly dumb politics.
"Not put more money into public services" doesn't quite capture it. "Stick by his plans for further acute cuts to public services" would be a more accurate description.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
It's not the Muslim community's fault that so many other British people find the issue too boring to engage with.
With all the conflicts and suffering going on around the world I fail to see why we should prioritise this situation in particular.
In terms of getting elected from outside the main parties the leftist Putin stooge does much better than his right-wing equivalent.
Rochdale has every democratic right to elect George Galloway. He is the democratically elected MP for Rochdale. It does not do for his opponents to claim that his election was undemocratic or mob-rule. If you deny people their right to elect scoundrels then they will express their evident discontent in ways other than the ballot box. Then things really could get nasty.
Sunak could probably go for massive tax cuts and shunning the OBR at the moment - everyone expects a Labour victory, so it might have very little impact on the financial markets.
No, that would be suicidal. The markets would react because a GE outcome is never guaranteed.
You're right, I'm wrong. Despite everything, he isn't as "brave" as Truss.
Jeremy Hunt says he will not put more money into public services.
Whatever the actual advantages of this idea, it is incredibly dumb politics.
"Not put more money into public services" doesn't quite capture it. "Stick by his plans for further acute cuts to public services" would be a more accurate description.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
It's not the Muslim community's fault that so many other British people find the issue too boring to engage with.
With all the conflicts and suffering going on around the world I fail to see why we should prioritise this situation in particular.
Because for Christians, Moslems and Jews the Old Testament is an important Book and so most will have heard of Gaza, especially when it’s explained as the land of the Philistines. Understanding of the situation and especially of the history may well be hazy, of course. At best.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
Never explain, never apologise. Any apology is taken as weakness, any text is torn to death for inconsistency.
How disciplined do we think the Tories will be during the election campaign? Likewise Labour?
What chance that either party has to disown a candidate during the campaign, as Labour had to disown Ali in Rochdale, and as Sunak has disowned Lee Anderson?
Could we end up with a few seats like Rochdale, where one or the other of the parties regard their officially nominated candidates as persona non grata?
My feeling is that Labour will be very disciplined, to an incredibly frustrating and quite boring degree.
I can see the Tories either doing the same or just going completely mad. I am starting to think the latter is the more likely.
The trouble is suspending candidates is fine when one party wins a large majority but in NOM or minority government territory, it might be suicidal.
The only Brit winners I have heard of are Kylie and the Last Dinner Party.
The latter only because for some reason Musk's algorithm keeps popping Island Record adverts up in my X stream.
LOL. I was waiting for a quiet moment to post that I've never heard of Raye who won six gongs last night. Apparently she is a popular beat combo artist, m'lud.
The only Brit winners I have heard of are Kylie and the Last Dinner Party.
The latter only because for some reason Musk's algorithm keeps popping Island Record adverts up in my X stream.
I know the Last Dinner Party only because my 13 year old daughter and I take turns to introduce each other to albums we think the other will like. She is very good at it.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
It's not the Muslim community's fault that so many other British people find the issue too boring to engage with.
With all the conflicts and suffering going on around the world I fail to see why we should prioritise this situation in particular.
Because for Christians, Moslems and Jews the Old Testament is an important Book and so most will have heard of Gaza, especially when it’s explained as the land of the Philistines. Understanding of the situation and especially of the history may well be hazy, of course. At best.
I wonder now if it might be May because if they announce tax cuts it gives Labour little time to respond and say if they'd keep them, whereas delaying gives Labour more time to evolve a plan plus time for more things to go wrong. On a practical level if combined with the locals, does anyone remember the snail count of 2015 especially in London and the Mets?. Final result Friday lunchtime.
It's wishful thinking that leads people to think it will be held in May, by those want to be rid of the Tories as soon as possible.
It's also why they try the gentle goading: the argument being that if you go sooner you might lose fewer seats, which I think is essentially nonsense.
But what about the actual arguments for having it in May from the Tories' point of view?
In fairness to the Seagoing Legally Challenged members of PB, you should remember that he has advocated the free right to build on your own land.
So in this case he would have been an advocate of the local tribespeople having unfettered rights to build Las Vegas knockoffs.
Not their expulsion and murder, so that the government can build a giant gin palace. That sounds like the kind of central government planning that all Free Folk Of The Sea abhor.
On topic, Galloway is a cynical opportunist, but also a one man band. I don't see him having much impact, and likely won't hold Rochdale.
Though whichever party signs up the Rochdale Independent as their candidate may do well.
Didn't Dead Ringers portray him as a fast talking hypnotist? There's clearly something about his stick that works face to face, but not via mass media, or for very long.
Thank goodness.
He is an incredibly powerful speaker, the best in the HoC. I don't like him one bit but he has oratory skills that MPs generally don't seem to possess anymore, it would be foolish to deny that.
Yes, agreed. See also Boris. There's a trap people often fall into of going from "I strongly dislike person x" to "I deny that person x hasany positive qualities or talents whatsoever"
I think Johnson's ability to lie was amazing. It never worked on me but it did on a lot of people and so he was an incredibly effective and successful politician.
But he was always going to end up in the position he was in. The people of London knew EXACTLY what was coming.
Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie – which may inadvertently be true.
In terms of getting elected from outside the main parties the leftist Putin stooge does much better than his right-wing equivalent.
Rochdale has every democratic right to elect George Galloway. He is the democratically elected MP for Rochdale. It does not do for his opponents to claim that his election was undemocratic or mob-rule. If you deny people their right to elect scoundrels then they will express their evident discontent in ways other than the ballot box. Then things really could get nasty.
Sure. As I wrote, you get what you vote for. There is an argument that Galloway won't be the worst MP we have had in the Commons during this session - there seems to be a major problem with scumbags getting elected and then doing various outrageous and very wrong things.
Galloway won't steal. Won't be inappropriate with staffers. Won't disappear for months because of an allegation we're not allowed to talk about. He will be endlessly speaking in the Commons and in the media. Great for Rochdale you would think.
No. He represents one part of the town. One community. One mindset. Regardless of party we have to at least maintain the pretence that MPs represent everyone. Will deal with any issue raised by a constituent. Imagine one of Rochdale's Jewish residents raising anti-semitism fears with Galloway. He won't be campaigning to bring maternity services back to Rochdale, he'll be campaigning to bring them to Rafah.
Although that said, given the truly labyrinthine rules on capital gains tax on property, I'm not sure even if she's broken the letter of the law it would gain much traction. All she will have to do is plead ignorance, which would be the case for most people who are not trained accountants (including not a few solicitors).
If she needed to turn it around, she could start by pointing out our tax system is a shambles and committing Labour to simplifying it.
This is annoying Mr Neidle.
Rayner said in a statement last week: “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”
But the rules don’t work like that. We are exempt from capital gains tax (CGT) on our main residence, but married couples can only have one main residence between them.
So Rayner’s initial statement, that she wasn’t liable for capital gains tax because Vicarage Road was her home, was wrong. It’s understandable that she didn’t understand the position in 2015; it would have been a good idea to have taken advice, but many people don’t (and Rayner wasn’t an MP at the time). It’s less understandable that she doesn’t appear to have taken advice before putting out her statement nine years later.
After I and others identified the problem, Rayner failed to correct her original statement, and is now saying simply that “no capital gains tax was payable”. How could that be?
Never explain, never apologise. Any apology is taken as weakness, any text is torn to death for inconsistency.
The reason for the one home rule is the common phenomenon that many small landlords are people holding onto their first property, while living with their partner.
Not an uncommon piece of planning to have both original flats (say). So when you retire, you have 3 properties with the mortgage paid off - one to live in and 2 rented out. And the return on a 100% owned property…
Jeremy Hunt says he will not put more money into public services.
Whatever the actual advantages of this idea, it is incredibly dumb politics.
"Not put more money into public services" doesn't quite capture it. "Stick by his plans for further acute cuts to public services" would be a more accurate description.
And he can point to record spending on public services.
The obvious counter argument has been deemed unsayable by his opponents.
Maybe he should have tried a bazooka. Too many disclaimers. Having just read O'Briens book 'How they broke britain' My expectation of 'both barrels' has moved up a notch. His Chapter 2.titled 'Paul Dacre' is the best eviseration of a nasty piece of work that I've read......
......'His favourite word 'cunt' is used so liberally around the office that they call his hysterical treatment of underlings 'The Vagina Monologues'
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
It's not the Muslim community's fault that so many other British people find the issue too boring to engage with.
With all the conflicts and suffering going on around the world I fail to see why we should prioritise this situation in particular.
Because for Christians, Moslems and Jews the Old Testament is an important Book and so most will have heard of Gaza, especially when it’s explained as the land of the Philistines. Understanding of the situation and especially of the history may well be hazy, of course. At best.
We are increasingly not a religious country.
Quite. That’s why ‘understanding’ is hazy, as I said. But somewhere in people’s memories is something about’!
In terms of getting elected from outside the main parties the leftist Putin stooge does much better than his right-wing equivalent.
Rochdale has every democratic right to elect George Galloway. He is the democratically elected MP for Rochdale. It does not do for his opponents to claim that his election was undemocratic or mob-rule. If you deny people their right to elect scoundrels then they will express their evident discontent in ways other than the ballot box. Then things really could get nasty.
Sure. As I wrote, you get what you vote for. There is an argument that Galloway won't be the worst MP we have had in the Commons during this session - there seems to be a major problem with scumbags getting elected and then doing various outrageous and very wrong things.
Galloway won't steal. Won't be inappropriate with staffers. Won't disappear for months because of an allegation we're not allowed to talk about. He will be endlessly speaking in the Commons and in the media. Great for Rochdale you would think.
No. He represents one part of the town. One community. One mindset. Regardless of party we have to at least maintain the pretence that MPs represent everyone. Will deal with any issue raised by a constituent. Imagine one of Rochdale's Jewish residents raising anti-semitism fears with Galloway. He won't be campaigning to bring maternity services back to Rochdale, he'll be campaigning to bring them to Rafah.
You never know
Paisley was apparently very good at the social work aspect for his Catholic constituents. He got people’s roofs fixed in double quick etc.
Possibly the single most stupid policy possible, in response to media headlines.
How many people actually understand non-dom status and how it works in practice, or how it relates to foreign direct investment and the balance of payments?
In terms of getting elected from outside the main parties the leftist Putin stooge does much better than his right-wing equivalent.
Rochdale has every democratic right to elect George Galloway. He is the democratically elected MP for Rochdale. It does not do for his opponents to claim that his election was undemocratic or mob-rule. If you deny people their right to elect scoundrels then they will express their evident discontent in ways other than the ballot box. Then things really could get nasty.
Sure. As I wrote, you get what you vote for. There is an argument that Galloway won't be the worst MP we have had in the Commons during this session - there seems to be a major problem with scumbags getting elected and then doing various outrageous and very wrong things.
Galloway won't steal. Won't be inappropriate with staffers. Won't disappear for months because of an allegation we're not allowed to talk about. He will be endlessly speaking in the Commons and in the media. Great for Rochdale you would think.
No. He represents one part of the town. One community. One mindset. Regardless of party we have to at least maintain the pretence that MPs represent everyone. Will deal with any issue raised by a constituent. Imagine one of Rochdale's Jewish residents raising anti-semitism fears with Galloway. He won't be campaigning to bring maternity services back to Rochdale, he'll be campaigning to bring them to Rafah.
You never know
Paisley was apparently very good at the social work aspect for his Catholic constituents. He got people’s roofs fixed in double quick etc.
How many MPs have we had since, 1980 say? A few thousand?
We’ve had 5 murders, innumerable assaults and a barrage of vile threats. For example, women MPs get sexual threats on a daily basis.
A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services.
A larger number wear stab vests when dealing with the public.
Every MP (pretty much) has had occasions when the stalking/threats have risen to the point the police start individually guarding them and their families.
Talk about a minority under siege.
Makes you wonder about the effect on attitude, doesn’t it?
Well, as you're going back to 1980, I'll offer a view from the 1997-2010 period. It basically wasn't an issue then. I had one death threat, but laughably with the name and address of the threatener - the police had a word and nobody worried about it. There was the very occasional serious incident, such as Stephen Timms being stabbed, and we were aware of the assassination of Airey Neave earlier, but we felt they were really horrific outliers, and nobody AFAIK bothered with personal security. I would cheerfully canvass anywhere in Britain.
It seems to have got much worse. Why that may be is the question.
With regards to the election, it'll be 23rd January. The budget has already fizzled - no money to do the things they had already announced, economy in recession and getting worse, services crumbling and no money available.
The idea of a May election called straight after the budget is excitingly remote, when you consider that it absolutely was plan A a few months ago.
Once we go beyond the deadline to go 2nd May its downhill all the way. We can all talk about various options in the autumn, but all of those involve Sunak calling an "early" election where they will get demolished.
The only wildcard left is January. We all know why January is a catastrophically bad idea. But Sunak will be in the position of needing something, *anything* to change the narrative. Plus this way he can be frit and make the decision of indecision - let parliament expire naturally.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Non-doms *do* live in ‘this country’, that’s the point. They’re foreign citizens with significant overseas earnings, who wish those overseas earnings to be taxed overseas rather than in the UK.
Looks like the traditional Sunday Rawnsley came out early this week, anyhow....
The police chiefs themselves have been strikingly reluctant to endorse Mr Sunak’s contention that Britain is descending into “mob rule”. This sounds like the kind of thing a rent-a-gob reactionary backbencher might spit out in the hope of being quoted by the Daily Mail. You don’t expect to hear that kind of nonsense coming out of the mouth of the prime minister.
There’s a need for a reasoned debate about the conduct and management of demonstrations. But that was not what the Tory leader was seeking to stimulate with those headline-hunting remarks [of last week]. He was conflating democratic protest with “mob rule” in a way that disdained and undermined Britain’s proud traditions of free assembly and free expression. This wild outburst did him no credit.
[This week's] was one of his better crafted speeches, even if the cynic in me wondered whether a deeply unpopular prime minister was trying to gain public favour by presentinging himself as the steady leader of the nation manning the thin line between stability and chaos. There is also a big underlying issue: the jarring discordance between Mr Sunak’s advocations of unity and mutual respect with the conduct of elements of his own party.
The Tory leader...has been flabby about policing extremism within his own ranks and this feebleness is sourced in a fear that they represent constituencies within his party that could make trouble for him. The Tory party’s hard right is the mob he feels most menaced by. He has not repudiated Ms Truss’s love-ins with the Trumpites. He sacked Ms Braverman as home secretary for an incendiary provocation about “hate marches” last November, but she was only in that profile-enhancing post in the first place because Mr Sunak struck a Faustian bargain with her when he thought he needed hard-right support to secure the premiership. He handed a louder mic to Lee Anderson by promoting him to deputy chair of the Tory party, a role he exploited to platform his noxious prejudices, until he quit over Rwanda.
Only extremists will disagree with the prime minister when he says we should not allow them to hijack our politics. More’s the pity that he has too often behaved like a hostage of the hate-mongers within his own party.
Something to remember.
How many MPs have we had since, 1980 say? A few thousand?
We’ve had 5 murders, innumerable assaults and a barrage of vile threats. For example, women MPs get sexual threats on a daily basis.
A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services.
A larger number wear stab vests when dealing with the public.
Every MP (pretty much) has had occasions when the stalking/threats have risen to the point the police start individually guarding them and their families.
Talk about a minority under siege.
Makes you wonder about the effect on attitude, doesn’t it?
Does not condone the crapiness, greed or uselessness of politicians.
No, it doesn’t.
But it explains why some of them feel “under siege”
And remember, this isn’t just for Them’uns, it goes for the MPs of *your* political party. No matter what that is.
EDIT: and I’m quite sure MSPs etc get a measure of the same shit.
MSP's are even worse than MP's even though it is hard to believe that possible.
Possibly the single most stupid policy possible, in response to media headlines.
How many people actually understand non-dom status and how it works in practice, or how it relates to foreign direct investment and the balance of payments?
Rejoining the EU would be a much better way of getting out of our parlous state.
Possibly the single most stupid policy possible, in response to media headlines.
How many people actually understand non-dom status and how it works in practice, or how it relates to foreign direct investment and the balance of payments?
You aware Labour don’t even have the scrap non dom policy themselves anymore?
Correct me where I’m wrong, because I seem to be the only person on earth spotting this latest u turn, and it’s the kind of WTF u turn you can spot from outer space - but Labours plan as of about 4 weeks ago, is to keep non dom status, merely tweak it and rename it.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Yes dodgy block votes really help. Amazing how one sided it is in this country, poor old hostages etc totally ignored, rarely get as much as a mention.
I wonder now if it might be May because if they announce tax cuts it gives Labour little time to respond and say if they'd keep them, whereas delaying gives Labour more time to evolve a plan plus time for more things to go wrong. On a practical level if combined with the locals, does anyone remember the snail count of 2015 especially in London and the Mets?. Final result Friday lunchtime.
It's wishful thinking that leads people to think it will be held in May, by those want to be rid of the Tories as soon as possible.
It's also why they try the gentle goading: the argument being that if you go sooner you might lose fewer seats, which I think is essentially nonsense.
The vibes I’m picking up is Labour don’t want this May General Election. They are silent on demanding one. They are not calling this a dead Parliament, and not loudly pointing out financial savings from holding GE same day as local elections. They appear to be applying zero pressure for May 2nd.
Why do you think that would be?
And how telling would it be if Labour completely changed this tune, and sang loudly from a different Hymn sheet from March 27th?
Sunak has an easy way of getting rid of Galloway from Parliament if he wants. One call to the king, and we all get to vote on May 2nd.
There won't be an election in May.
It's needed but won't happen. Sunak will leave it as long as possible.
Sunak will not be in post long after May
I agree that there is likely to be a VONC after the May locals, but he will survive. Only Truss wants the poisoned chalice, and even the Tories are not that daft.
The compelling features of a hypothetical Truss challenge is the tory members are addled enough to vote for her again and she's psychotic enough to believe she can win the subsequent GE.
So, odds on?
Where Truss went wrong was not being more like ‘smeared’ Miele.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Non-doms *do* live in ‘this country’, that’s the point. They’re foreign citizens with significant overseas earnings, who wish those overseas earnings to be taxed overseas rather than in the UK.
Greedy barstewards you mean who want best of both world's and want to evade paying tax which our dodgy politician's are happy to allow.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Non-doms *do* live in ‘this country’, that’s the point. They’re foreign citizens with significant overseas earnings, who wish those overseas earnings to be taxed overseas rather than in the UK.
Why should they not be paying those taxes here? Or does Mrs Sunak not use any of the services of this country and instead bubbles around?
Looks like the traditional Sunday Rawnsley came out early this week, anyhow....
The police chiefs themselves have been strikingly reluctant to endorse Mr Sunak’s contention that Britain is descending into “mob rule”. This sounds like the kind of thing a rent-a-gob reactionary backbencher might spit out in the hope of being quoted by the Daily Mail. You don’t expect to hear that kind of nonsense coming out of the mouth of the prime minister.
There’s a need for a reasoned debate about the conduct and management of demonstrations. But that was not what the Tory leader was seeking to stimulate with those headline-hunting remarks [of last week]. He was conflating democratic protest with “mob rule” in a way that disdained and undermined Britain’s proud traditions of free assembly and free expression. This wild outburst did him no credit.
[This week's] was one of his better crafted speeches, even if the cynic in me wondered whether a deeply unpopular prime minister was trying to gain public favour by presentinging himself as the steady leader of the nation manning the thin line between stability and chaos. There is also a big underlying issue: the jarring discordance between Mr Sunak’s advocations of unity and mutual respect with the conduct of elements of his own party.
The Tory leader...has been flabby about policing extremism within his own ranks and this feebleness is sourced in a fear that they represent constituencies within his party that could make trouble for him. The Tory party’s hard right is the mob he feels most menaced by. He has not repudiated Ms Truss’s love-ins with the Trumpites. He sacked Ms Braverman as home secretary for an incendiary provocation about “hate marches” last November, but she was only in that profile-enhancing post in the first place because Mr Sunak struck a Faustian bargain with her when he thought he needed hard-right support to secure the premiership. He handed a louder mic to Lee Anderson by promoting him to deputy chair of the Tory party, a role he exploited to platform his noxious prejudices, until he quit over Rwanda.
Only extremists will disagree with the prime minister when he says we should not allow them to hijack our politics. More’s the pity that he has too often behaved like a hostage of the hate-mongers within his own party.
Something to remember.
How many MPs have we had since, 1980 say? A few thousand?
We’ve had 5 murders, innumerable assaults and a barrage of vile threats. For example, women MPs get sexual threats on a daily basis.
A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services.
A larger number wear stab vests when dealing with the public.
Every MP (pretty much) has had occasions when the stalking/threats have risen to the point the police start individually guarding them and their families.
Talk about a minority under siege.
Makes you wonder about the effect on attitude, doesn’t it?
"A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services"
And yet he won on Thursday. Some people clearly do like him.
Wrong. They didn't like the others.
I think you are both right. In FPTP you only need one more person to like you than like the others. George Galloway achieved that even though most people don't like him. It's possible he would still have achieved that if Labour's campaign hadn't blown up.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
It's not the Muslim community's fault that so many other British people find the issue too boring to engage with.
With all the conflicts and suffering going on around the world I fail to see why we should prioritise this situation in particular.
Because for Christians, Moslems and Jews the Old Testament is an important Book and so most will have heard of Gaza, especially when it’s explained as the land of the Philistines. Understanding of the situation and especially of the history may well be hazy, of course. At best.
Looks like the traditional Sunday Rawnsley came out early this week, anyhow....
The police chiefs themselves have been strikingly reluctant to endorse Mr Sunak’s contention that Britain is descending into “mob rule”. This sounds like the kind of thing a rent-a-gob reactionary backbencher might spit out in the hope of being quoted by the Daily Mail. You don’t expect to hear that kind of nonsense coming out of the mouth of the prime minister.
There’s a need for a reasoned debate about the conduct and management of demonstrations. But that was not what the Tory leader was seeking to stimulate with those headline-hunting remarks [of last week]. He was conflating democratic protest with “mob rule” in a way that disdained and undermined Britain’s proud traditions of free assembly and free expression. This wild outburst did him no credit.
[This week's] was one of his better crafted speeches, even if the cynic in me wondered whether a deeply unpopular prime minister was trying to gain public favour by presentinging himself as the steady leader of the nation manning the thin line between stability and chaos. There is also a big underlying issue: the jarring discordance between Mr Sunak’s advocations of unity and mutual respect with the conduct of elements of his own party.
The Tory leader...has been flabby about policing extremism within his own ranks and this feebleness is sourced in a fear that they represent constituencies within his party that could make trouble for him. The Tory party’s hard right is the mob he feels most menaced by. He has not repudiated Ms Truss’s love-ins with the Trumpites. He sacked Ms Braverman as home secretary for an incendiary provocation about “hate marches” last November, but she was only in that profile-enhancing post in the first place because Mr Sunak struck a Faustian bargain with her when he thought he needed hard-right support to secure the premiership. He handed a louder mic to Lee Anderson by promoting him to deputy chair of the Tory party, a role he exploited to platform his noxious prejudices, until he quit over Rwanda.
Only extremists will disagree with the prime minister when he says we should not allow them to hijack our politics. More’s the pity that he has too often behaved like a hostage of the hate-mongers within his own party.
Something to remember.
How many MPs have we had since, 1980 say? A few thousand?
We’ve had 5 murders, innumerable assaults and a barrage of vile threats. For example, women MPs get sexual threats on a daily basis.
A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services.
A larger number wear stab vests when dealing with the public.
Every MP (pretty much) has had occasions when the stalking/threats have risen to the point the police start individually guarding them and their families.
Talk about a minority under siege.
Makes you wonder about the effect on attitude, doesn’t it?
"A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services"
Percentages are not enough: ansolute numbers and thresholds are also necessary
There are about 175K Conservative members. Two thirds of that is around 120K. That's less people than Middlesbrough
Sunak's failure is explaining why Anderson was suspended. It wasn't because he said the 'unsayable' or something 'politically incorrect' it was because he made an inaccurate criticism about a Muslim man which might reasonably be seen as racist.
If Khan was controlled by Islamists he would have promoted BDS, been against same sex marriage etc. One should never forget the disgraceful behaviour of the Met in taking down posters of the Israeli hostages. Khan is certainly culpable for their conduct including with regard to the marches but then so is the government.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Non-doms *do* live in ‘this country’, that’s the point. They’re foreign citizens with significant overseas earnings, who wish those overseas earnings to be taxed overseas rather than in the UK.
Why should they not be paying those taxes here? Or does Mrs Sunak not use any of the services of this country and instead bubbles around?
If the status was not allowed, she’d instead base herself in Dubai or Singapore, and pay (much lower) taxes there.
Non-doms have to pay UK taxes on UK income, but they’re not citizens and shouldn’t pay tax on overseas investments.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Domicile is very different to residence, which is why the rule is meaningful in the first place. If she was non resident she wouldn’t be taxed on anything other than UK source income anyway.
Domicile is essentially “where are you REALLY from”, but with a tax break attached.
Just a con so rich people can evade tax and say it is legal.
Looks like the traditional Sunday Rawnsley came out early this week, anyhow....
The police chiefs themselves have been strikingly reluctant to endorse Mr Sunak’s contention that Britain is descending into “mob rule”. This sounds like the kind of thing a rent-a-gob reactionary backbencher might spit out in the hope of being quoted by the Daily Mail. You don’t expect to hear that kind of nonsense coming out of the mouth of the prime minister.
There’s a need for a reasoned debate about the conduct and management of demonstrations. But that was not what the Tory leader was seeking to stimulate with those headline-hunting remarks [of last week]. He was conflating democratic protest with “mob rule” in a way that disdained and undermined Britain’s proud traditions of free assembly and free expression. This wild outburst did him no credit.
[This week's] was one of his better crafted speeches, even if the cynic in me wondered whether a deeply unpopular prime minister was trying to gain public favour by presentinging himself as the steady leader of the nation manning the thin line between stability and chaos. There is also a big underlying issue: the jarring discordance between Mr Sunak’s advocations of unity and mutual respect with the conduct of elements of his own party.
The Tory leader...has been flabby about policing extremism within his own ranks and this feebleness is sourced in a fear that they represent constituencies within his party that could make trouble for him. The Tory party’s hard right is the mob he feels most menaced by. He has not repudiated Ms Truss’s love-ins with the Trumpites. He sacked Ms Braverman as home secretary for an incendiary provocation about “hate marches” last November, but she was only in that profile-enhancing post in the first place because Mr Sunak struck a Faustian bargain with her when he thought he needed hard-right support to secure the premiership. He handed a louder mic to Lee Anderson by promoting him to deputy chair of the Tory party, a role he exploited to platform his noxious prejudices, until he quit over Rwanda.
Only extremists will disagree with the prime minister when he says we should not allow them to hijack our politics. More’s the pity that he has too often behaved like a hostage of the hate-mongers within his own party.
Something to remember.
How many MPs have we had since, 1980 say? A few thousand?
We’ve had 5 murders, innumerable assaults and a barrage of vile threats. For example, women MPs get sexual threats on a daily basis.
A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services.
A larger number wear stab vests when dealing with the public.
Every MP (pretty much) has had occasions when the stalking/threats have risen to the point the police start individually guarding them and their families.
Talk about a minority under siege.
Makes you wonder about the effect on attitude, doesn’t it?
"A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services"
Possibly the single most stupid policy possible, in response to media headlines.
How many people actually understand non-dom status and how it works in practice, or how it relates to foreign direct investment and the balance of payments?
It means that Labours policy has actually connected with voters and that Tory research has picked this up
How many MPs have we had since, 1980 say? A few thousand?
We’ve had 5 murders, innumerable assaults and a barrage of vile threats. For example, women MPs get sexual threats on a daily basis.
A number of MPs carry guns to protect themselves against terrorist threats, as assessed as real and probable by the intelligence services.
A larger number wear stab vests when dealing with the public.
Every MP (pretty much) has had occasions when the stalking/threats have risen to the point the police start individually guarding them and their families.
Talk about a minority under siege.
Makes you wonder about the effect on attitude, doesn’t it?
Well, as you're going back to 1980, I'll offer a view from the 1997-2010 period. It basically wasn't an issue then. I had one death threat, but laughably with the name and address of the threatener - the police had a word and nobody worried about it. There was the very occasional serious incident, such as Stephen Timms being stabbed, and we were aware of the assassination of Airey Neave earlier, but we felt they were really horrific outliers, and nobody AFAIK bothered with personal security. I would cheerfully canvass anywhere in Britain.
It seems to have got much worse. Why that may be is the question.
Anti-social media. It's a cesspit of completely unrestrained hatred.
Possibly the single most stupid policy possible, in response to media headlines.
How many people actually understand non-dom status and how it works in practice, or how it relates to foreign direct investment and the balance of payments?
I doubt it’s abject humiliation but it is worrying to see we now have governance by opposition policy and daily mirror editorial.
Same with the end to so called no fault evictions which is merely the end of a contract and one party not wanting to renew it.
And yet he won on Thursday. Some people clearly do like him.
Wrong. They didn't like the others.
I think you are both right. In FPTP you only need one more person to like you than like the others. George Galloway achieved that even though most people don't like him. It's possible he would still have achieved that if Labour's campaign hadn't blown up.
Do people actually vote for people they "like"? Aren't voters more cynical than that? I expect people vote for the least worst option. For most people, a career politician is not going to be a particularly likeable person, not someone they will have anything in common with.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Non-doms *do* live in ‘this country’, that’s the point. They’re foreign citizens with significant overseas earnings, who wish those overseas earnings to be taxed overseas rather than in the UK.
Why should they not be paying those taxes here? Or does Mrs Sunak not use any of the services of this country and instead bubbles around?
If the status was not allowed, she’d instead base herself in Dubai or Singapore, and pay (much lower) taxes there.
Non-doms have to pay UK taxes on UK income, but they’re not citizens and shouldn’t pay tax on overseas investments.
Lots of people living in the UK have their overseas earnings taxed elsewhere without claiming non dom status. If you choose to be here 183 days in the tax year the same should apply to everyone - you are resident.
Sunak has an easy way of getting rid of Galloway from Parliament if he wants. One call to the king, and we all get to vote on May 2nd.
There won't be an election in May.
It's needed but won't happen. Sunak will leave it as long as possible.
Sunak will not be in post long after May
I agree that there is likely to be a VONC after the May locals, but he will survive. Only Truss wants the poisoned chalice, and even the Tories are not that daft.
The compelling features of a hypothetical Truss challenge is the tory members are addled enough to vote for her again and she's psychotic enough to believe she can win the subsequent GE.
So, odds on?
Where Truss went wrong was not being more like ‘smeared’ Miele.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
It's not the Muslim community's fault that so many other British people find the issue too boring to engage with.
With all the conflicts and suffering going on around the world I fail to see why we should prioritise this situation in particular.
It's the only one I know of where a developed country is killing hundreds of people a day and causing a famine, I think that's quite newsworthy.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Non-doms *do* live in ‘this country’, that’s the point. They’re foreign citizens with significant overseas earnings, who wish those overseas earnings to be taxed overseas rather than in the UK.
Why should they not be paying those taxes here? Or does Mrs Sunak not use any of the services of this country and instead bubbles around?
If the status was not allowed, she’d instead base herself in Dubai or Singapore, and pay (much lower) taxes there.
Non-doms have to pay UK taxes on UK income, but they’re not citizens and shouldn’t pay tax on overseas investments.
We should be so lucky , get her off to Dubai on next flight and take Rishi with her, you can make any excuses you want it is just "legal" tax evasion by the rich for the rich. Fake feckers would fit in fake Dubai just nicely.
Percentages are not enough: ansolute numbers and thresholds are also necessary
There are about 175K Conservative members. Two thirds of that is around 120K. That's less people than Middlesbrough
Sunak's failure is explaining why Anderson was suspended. It wasn't because he said the 'unsayable' or something 'politically incorrect' it was because he made an inaccurate criticism about a Muslim man which might reasonably be seen as racist.
If Khan was controlled by Islamists he would have promoted BDS, been against same sex marriage etc. One should never forget the disgraceful behaviour of the Met in taking down posters of the Israeli hostages. Khan is certainly culpable for their conduct including with regard to the marches but then so is the government.
If Sadiq Khan wasn't a Muslim it would make absolutely zero difference to how he runs London, because Islam has nothing to do with it.
Replace Muslim for "Jew" and it's quite obvious why what Anderson said was unacceptable. And also with the amount of death threats and abuse Khan already gets, grossly irresponsible. Attack Khan's policies fine.
Possibly the single most stupid policy possible, in response to media headlines.
How many people actually understand non-dom status and how it works in practice, or how it relates to foreign direct investment and the balance of payments?
I doubt it’s abject humiliation but it is worrying to see we now have governance by opposition policy and daily mirror editorial.
Same with the end to so called no fault evictions which is merely the end of a contract and one party not wanting to renew it.
Surely it's time landlords had to take business risk and run the risk of actually losing money and their business going tits up. Profit is the reward for risk.
Non Dom status must be drawn very broadly if the wife of the PM can have that status. Does she really not live in this country?
Non-doms *do* live in ‘this country’, that’s the point. They’re foreign citizens with significant overseas earnings, who wish those overseas earnings to be taxed overseas rather than in the UK.
Why should they not be paying those taxes here? Or does Mrs Sunak not use any of the services of this country and instead bubbles around?
If the status was not allowed, she’d instead base herself in Dubai or Singapore, and pay (much lower) taxes there.
Non-doms have to pay UK taxes on UK income, but they’re not citizens and shouldn’t pay tax on overseas investments.
Frankly I don't want her here if she seems to want to contribute so little to British life. Just like her husband she claims to love this country but does everything to show she actually hates it.
George won the Rochdale by-election fair and square!
There are allegations about block votes in the large number of postals submitted. That’s hardly unique to Rochdale but is dodgy.
Ultimately Galloway won because his vote was motivated and nobody else’s was. He is legally elected, but that doesn’t make it right, in the exact same way that Rochdale electing a Britain First MP wouldn’t have been right.
There is a positive part to Galloways election, in that it has given electoral voice to the strong opinions over Gaza. It is right and proper that these are expressed in democratic ways rather than just on the streets.
Whilst you point is true, it is where and how it has been expressed that I have the problem. Take a community riven with race issues, and insert *that* as the MP with Gaza the issue. It may provide democratic focus to the Gaza protests, but at the cost of taking Rochdale's community cohesion back a few decades.
It's not the Muslim community's fault that so many other British people find the issue too boring to engage with.
With all the conflicts and suffering going on around the world I fail to see why we should prioritise this situation in particular.
It's the only one I know of where a developed country is killing hundreds of people a day and causing a famine, I think that's quite newsworthy.
Think if you look at Africa and various other middle east areas you will find very similar if not worse. They are always killing each other and close to famine etc.
Percentages are not enough: ansolute numbers and thresholds are also necessary
There are about 175K Conservative members. Two thirds of that is around 120K. That's less people than Middlesbrough
Sunak's failure is explaining why Anderson was suspended. It wasn't because he said the 'unsayable' or something 'politically incorrect' it was because he made an inaccurate criticism about a Muslim man which might reasonably be seen as racist.
If Khan was controlled by Islamists he would have promoted BDS, been against same sex marriage etc. One should never forget the disgraceful behaviour of the Met in taking down posters of the Israeli hostages. Khan is certainly culpable for their conduct including with regard to the marches but then so is the government.
If Sadiq Khan wasn't a Muslim it would make absolutely zero difference to how he runs London, because Islam has nothing to do with it.
Replace Muslim for "Jew" and it's quite obvious why what Anderson said was unacceptable. And also with the amount of death threats and abuse Khan already gets, grossly irresponsible. Attack Khan's policies fine.
With regards to the election, it'll be 23rd January. The budget has already fizzled - no money to do the things they had already announced, economy in recession and getting worse, services crumbling and no money available.
The idea of a May election called straight after the budget is excitingly remote, when you consider that it absolutely was plan A a few months ago.
Once we go beyond the deadline to go 2nd May its downhill all the way. We can all talk about various options in the autumn, but all of those involve Sunak calling an "early" election where they will get demolished.
The only wildcard left is January. We all know why January is a catastrophically bad idea. But Sunak will be in the position of needing something, *anything* to change the narrative. Plus this way he can be frit and make the decision of indecision - let parliament expire naturally.
I do think if he goes past May - although @MoonRabbit's post was good and if they are wrong I am afraid will never live it down - he will go as late as possible.
With regards to the election, it'll be 23rd January. The budget has already fizzled - no money to do the things they had already announced, economy in recession and getting worse, services crumbling and no money available.
The idea of a May election called straight after the budget is excitingly remote, when you consider that it absolutely was plan A a few months ago.
Once we go beyond the deadline to go 2nd May its downhill all the way. We can all talk about various options in the autumn, but all of those involve Sunak calling an "early" election where they will get demolished.
The only wildcard left is January. We all know why January is a catastrophically bad idea. But Sunak will be in the position of needing something, *anything* to change the narrative. Plus this way he can be frit and make the decision of indecision - let parliament expire naturally.
My assumption has been that he'll go for an election date of 12th December, five years exactly after the previous election.
However, if I understand correctly, that would require calling the election almost exactly on polling day in the US. Will that really happen?
Similarly, I think the suggestion of a November election, using party conference as a launching-off point, has some merit - not least of avoiding those dates which would involve cancelling party conference. But an election nine days after the US election? It would put the BBC into an awful bind. Think of all those journalists who were looking forward to a chance to interview voters in Atlanta or Arizona, and instead they'd be expected to trudge around Altrincham or Ayrshire.
There's a bizarre confluence of events that will encourage delay, as well as the natural reluctance to invite electoral oblivion.
‘Everyone is terrified of King Gavin’: Newsom’s unchallenged anti-homelessness gambit https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/02/prop-1-ballot-measure-mental-health-battle-00144530 ..Prop 1 will make changes to the Mental Health Services Act, a tax on incomes over a million dollars that was groundbreaking when approved by voters in 2004. It gave counties fairly wide latitude to spend the money on whatever mental health programs they saw fit, with limited coverage for substance use disorders. Newsom has been itching to rewrite the law for years. When he devoted his entire State of the State Address in 2020 to the problem of homelessness, he excoriated counties for hoarding MHSA funds instead of using them to address the crisis.
After being sidetracked by the pandemic, Newsom finally had the chance to tackle the issue last year. Proposition 1 began its path to the ballot as two separate bills. One directed counties to change the way they spend and report their mental health budgets, requiring they spend more on housing and treatment for people in encampments. A companion bond issue committed $6.4 billion to fund new residential mental health and addiction treatment, and housing for veterans. Because voters approved the MHSA in 2004, they would now be required to weigh in on the dense new policy, rechristened the Behavioral Health Services Act...
Given that many of the homeless will be illegal immigrants I doubt it would be any more of a vote winner where it counts than his raising taxes to give free health care to illegal immigrants would be.
I wonder now if it might be May because if they announce tax cuts it gives Labour little time to respond and say if they'd keep them, whereas delaying gives Labour more time to evolve a plan plus time for more things to go wrong. On a practical level if combined with the locals, does anyone remember the snail count of 2015 especially in London and the Mets?. Final result Friday lunchtime.
It's wishful thinking that leads people to think it will be held in May, by those want to be rid of the Tories as soon as possible.
It's also why they try the gentle goading: the argument being that if you go sooner you might lose fewer seats, which I think is essentially nonsense.
“if you go sooner you might lose fewer seats, which I think is essentially nonsense”
Please share with us your thoughts how you came to this conclusion. It might be both the main parties war gaming and modelling of how it plays out, is different to yours?
Labour might like how bad set of locals for Tory’s plays into the election build up. And Labour also like to have a million households switching to higher mortgage deals before voting day, continued lack of growth to knock on the head any “turned a corner” campaign slogan, inflation sweet spot being in spring and predicted to rise again before year end, and an interim report from covid inquiry before the General Election.
Oh, did I forget to mention the big upsurge in boats from July, reversing last years good news on crossings?
Do any PBer’s think this expected upsurge in boat crossings isn’t actually going to happen? Or that the government can prevent it in some way?
With regards to the election, it'll be 23rd January. The budget has already fizzled - no money to do the things they had already announced, economy in recession and getting worse, services crumbling and no money available.
The idea of a May election called straight after the budget is excitingly remote, when you consider that it absolutely was plan A a few months ago.
Once we go beyond the deadline to go 2nd May its downhill all the way. We can all talk about various options in the autumn, but all of those involve Sunak calling an "early" election where they will get demolished.
The only wildcard left is January. We all know why January is a catastrophically bad idea. But Sunak will be in the position of needing something, *anything* to change the narrative. Plus this way he can be frit and make the decision of indecision - let parliament expire naturally.
My assumption has been that he'll go for an election date of 12th December, five years exactly after the previous election.
However, if I understand correctly, that would require calling the election almost exactly on polling day in the US. Will that really happen?
Similarly, I think the suggestion of a November election, using party conference as a launching-off point, has some merit - not least of avoiding those dates which would involve cancelling party conference. But an election nine days after the US election? It would put the BBC into an awful bind. Think of all those journalists who were looking forward to a chance to interview voters in Atlanta or Arizona, and instead they'd be expected to trudge around Altrincham or Ayrshire.
There's a bizarre confluence of events that will encourage delay, as well as the natural reluctance to invite electoral oblivion.
Why exactly is there so much idea that we won't call something because the US is having an election? Is it because he's scared of Trump?
With regards to the election, it'll be 23rd January. The budget has already fizzled - no money to do the things they had already announced, economy in recession and getting worse, services crumbling and no money available.
The idea of a May election called straight after the budget is excitingly remote, when you consider that it absolutely was plan A a few months ago.
Once we go beyond the deadline to go 2nd May its downhill all the way. We can all talk about various options in the autumn, but all of those involve Sunak calling an "early" election where they will get demolished.
The only wildcard left is January. We all know why January is a catastrophically bad idea. But Sunak will be in the position of needing something, *anything* to change the narrative. Plus this way he can be frit and make the decision of indecision - let parliament expire naturally.
My assumption has been that he'll go for an election date of 12th December, five years exactly after the previous election.
However, if I understand correctly, that would require calling the election almost exactly on polling day in the US. Will that really happen?
Similarly, I think the suggestion of a November election, using party conference as a launching-off point, has some merit - not least of avoiding those dates which would involve cancelling party conference. But an election nine days after the US election? It would put the BBC into an awful bind. Think of all those journalists who were looking forward to a chance to interview voters in Atlanta or Arizona, and instead they'd be expected to trudge around Altrincham or Ayrshire.
There's a bizarre confluence of events that will encourage delay, as well as the natural reluctance to invite electoral oblivion.
With regards to the election, it'll be 23rd January. The budget has already fizzled - no money to do the things they had already announced, economy in recession and getting worse, services crumbling and no money available.
The idea of a May election called straight after the budget is excitingly remote, when you consider that it absolutely was plan A a few months ago.
Once we go beyond the deadline to go 2nd May its downhill all the way. We can all talk about various options in the autumn, but all of those involve Sunak calling an "early" election where they will get demolished.
The only wildcard left is January. We all know why January is a catastrophically bad idea. But Sunak will be in the position of needing something, *anything* to change the narrative. Plus this way he can be frit and make the decision of indecision - let parliament expire naturally.
My assumption has been that he'll go for an election date of 12th December, five years exactly after the previous election.
However, if I understand correctly, that would require calling the election almost exactly on polling day in the US. Will that really happen?
Similarly, I think the suggestion of a November election, using party conference as a launching-off point, has some merit - not least of avoiding those dates which would involve cancelling party conference. But an election nine days after the US election? It would put the BBC into an awful bind. Think of all those journalists who were looking forward to a chance to interview voters in Atlanta or Arizona, and instead they'd be expected to trudge around Altrincham or Ayrshire.
There's a bizarre confluence of events that will encourage delay, as well as the natural reluctance to invite electoral oblivion.
I think October would be best of a bad lot for it but these losers are likely to hang on to the bitter end knowing it will be a train wreck regardless.
I wonder now if it might be May because if they announce tax cuts it gives Labour little time to respond and say if they'd keep them, whereas delaying gives Labour more time to evolve a plan plus time for more things to go wrong. On a practical level if combined with the locals, does anyone remember the snail count of 2015 especially in London and the Mets?. Final result Friday lunchtime.
It's wishful thinking that leads people to think it will be held in May, by those want to be rid of the Tories as soon as possible.
It's also why they try the gentle goading: the argument being that if you go sooner you might lose fewer seats, which I think is essentially nonsense.
“if you go sooner you might lose fewer seats, which I think is essentially nonsense”
Have you not spotted anything at all from last couple of months, particularly last few weeks, of a government tidying around and clearing the decks for a an April General Election campaign?
I wonder now if it might be May because if they announce tax cuts it gives Labour little time to respond and say if they'd keep them, whereas delaying gives Labour more time to evolve a plan plus time for more things to go wrong. On a practical level if combined with the locals, does anyone remember the snail count of 2015 especially in London and the Mets?. Final result Friday lunchtime.
It's wishful thinking that leads people to think it will be held in May, by those want to be rid of the Tories as soon as possible.
It's also why they try the gentle goading: the argument being that if you go sooner you might lose fewer seats, which I think is essentially nonsense.
“if you go sooner you might lose fewer seats, which I think is essentially nonsense”
Please share with us your thoughts how you came to this conclusion. It might be both the main parties war gaming and modelling of how it plays out, is different to yours?
Labour might like how bad set of locals for Tory’s plays into the election build up. And Labour also like to have a million households switching to higher mortgage deals before voting day, continued lack of growth to knock on the head any “turned a corner” campaign slogan, inflation sweet spot being in spring and predicted to rise again before year end, and an interim report from covid inquiry before the General Election.
Oh, did I forget to mention the big upsurge in boats from July, reversing last years good news on crossings?
Do any PBer’s think this expected upsurge in boat crossings isn’t actually going to happen? Or that the government can prevent it in some way?
You do post some very convincing arguments on this.
How long until we find out if your prediction day is right or wrong?
Comments
Simple as that.
The timings are flexible; and the time allowed before CGT is due on a house that has been a primary residence is another factor. (I don't think they had index linking for CGT any more then, though.)
When did the introduce it - I don't recall Foot cohabiting with Healey (though perhaps they just kept it quiet at the time) ?
The real problem with such measures is that their perverse consequences aren't fully clear at the time, and they can then be very difficult to modify once introduced (see Prop 13, for example).
Move on.
Clean up the planet.
Declutter your life!
Domicile is essentially “where are you REALLY from”, but with a tax break attached.
Germany to investigate Russia’s apparent interception of military talks on Ukraine
Chancellor Olaf Scholz describes as ‘very serious’ the circulation of a recording purportedly showing German officials discussing delivery of long-range missiles to Kyiv
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/03/germany-investigate-russia-ukraine-call-possible-interception
What chance that either party has to disown a candidate during the campaign, as Labour had to disown Ali in Rochdale, and as Sunak has disowned Lee Anderson?
Could we end up with a few seats like Rochdale, where one or the other of the parties regard their officially nominated candidates as persona non grata?
Doesn't mean it won't happen after then but will only have marginal impact (unless it's something gratuitous) as people will be focusing on policies
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
Whatever the actual advantages of this idea, it is incredibly dumb politics.
I can see the Tories either doing the same or just going completely mad. I am starting to think the latter is the more likely.
*insert rant about living in a theocracy*
But I fully expect to pay CGT when I finally sell. This will be on the years of uplift when I wasn't living there and it was rented out.
There used to be a factor knocked off CGT if you were a landlord but that little loophole has been cemented over in recent years.
Isn't the issue with the Red Queen though that she took advantage of buying a council house, a right she plans to get rid off when in office?
But he was always going to end up in the position he was in. The people of London knew EXACTLY what was coming.
In terms of getting elected from outside the main parties the leftist Putin stooge does much better than his right-wing equivalent.
Rochdale has every democratic right to elect George Galloway. He is the democratically elected MP for Rochdale. It does not do for his opponents to claim that his election was undemocratic or mob-rule. If you deny people their right to elect scoundrels then they will express their evident discontent in ways other than the ballot box. Then things really could get nasty.
The only Brit winners I have heard of are Kylie and the Last Dinner Party.
The latter only because for some reason Musk's algorithm keeps popping Island Record adverts up in my X stream.
https://x.com/getfiscal/status/1764204710771212501?s=20
comboartist, m'lud.So in this case he would have been an advocate of the local tribespeople having unfettered rights to build Las Vegas knockoffs.
Not their expulsion and murder, so that the government can build a giant gin palace. That sounds like the kind of central government planning that all Free Folk Of The Sea abhor.
Galloway won't steal. Won't be inappropriate with staffers. Won't disappear for months because of an allegation we're not allowed to talk about. He will be endlessly speaking in the Commons and in the media. Great for Rochdale you would think.
No. He represents one part of the town. One community. One mindset. Regardless of party we have to at least maintain the pretence that MPs represent everyone. Will deal with any issue raised by a constituent. Imagine one of Rochdale's Jewish residents raising anti-semitism fears with Galloway. He won't be campaigning to bring maternity services back to Rochdale, he'll be campaigning to bring them to Rafah.
There are about 175K Conservative members. Two thirds of that is around 120K. That's less people than Middlesbrough
Not an uncommon piece of planning to have both original flats (say). So when you retire, you have 3 properties with the mortgage paid off - one to live in and 2 rented out. And the return on a 100% owned property…
The obvious counter argument has been deemed unsayable by his opponents.
......'His favourite word 'cunt' is used so liberally around the office that they call his hysterical treatment of underlings 'The Vagina Monologues'
Paisley was apparently very good at the social work aspect for his Catholic constituents. He got people’s roofs fixed in double quick etc.
How many people actually understand non-dom status and how it works in practice, or how it relates to foreign direct investment and the balance of payments?
It seems to have got much worse. Why that may be is the question.
The idea of a May election called straight after the budget is excitingly remote, when you consider that it absolutely was plan A a few months ago.
Once we go beyond the deadline to go 2nd May its downhill all the way. We can all talk about various options in the autumn, but all of those involve Sunak calling an "early" election where they will get demolished.
The only wildcard left is January. We all know why January is a catastrophically bad idea. But Sunak will be in the position of needing something, *anything* to change the narrative. Plus this way he can be frit and make the decision of indecision - let parliament expire naturally.
Correct me where I’m wrong, because I seem to be the only person on earth spotting this latest u turn, and it’s the kind of WTF u turn you can spot from outer space - but Labours plan as of about 4 weeks ago, is to keep non dom status, merely tweak it and rename it.
Anyone 🤷♀️
Why do you think that would be?
And how telling would it be if Labour completely changed this tune, and sang loudly from a different Hymn sheet from March 27th?
Are you serious?.
If Khan was controlled by Islamists he would have promoted BDS, been against same sex marriage etc. One should never forget the disgraceful behaviour of the Met in taking down posters of the Israeli hostages. Khan is certainly culpable for their conduct including with regard to the marches but then so is the government.
Non-doms have to pay UK taxes on UK income, but they’re not citizens and shouldn’t pay tax on overseas investments.
Same with the end to so called no fault evictions which is merely the end of a contract and one party not wanting to renew it.
https://x.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1763929548544946538
Extremism fine as long as the Tories do it.
Thank you and goodnight!
Replace Muslim for "Jew" and it's quite obvious why what Anderson said was unacceptable. And also with the amount of death threats and abuse Khan already gets, grossly irresponsible. Attack Khan's policies fine.
Personally I don't think Khan is crap, certainly no less crap than Johnson.
However, if I understand correctly, that would require calling the election almost exactly on polling day in the US. Will that really happen?
Similarly, I think the suggestion of a November election, using party conference as a launching-off point, has some merit - not least of avoiding those dates which would involve cancelling party conference. But an election nine days after the US election? It would put the BBC into an awful bind. Think of all those journalists who were looking forward to a chance to interview voters in Atlanta or Arizona, and instead they'd be expected to trudge around Altrincham or Ayrshire.
There's a bizarre confluence of events that will encourage delay, as well as the natural reluctance to invite electoral oblivion.
Please share with us your thoughts how you came to this conclusion. It might be both the main parties war gaming and modelling of how it plays out, is different to yours?
Labour might like how bad set of locals for Tory’s plays into the election build up. And Labour also like to have a million households switching to higher mortgage deals before voting day, continued lack of growth to knock on the head any “turned a corner” campaign slogan, inflation sweet spot being in spring and predicted to rise again before year end, and an interim report from covid inquiry before the General Election.
Oh, did I forget to mention the big upsurge in boats from July, reversing last years good news on crossings?
Do any PBer’s think this expected upsurge in boat crossings isn’t actually going to happen? Or that the government can prevent it in some way?
I don't understand the absolute loathing Khan gets, for me he is totally "meh". I'll happily vote for him again only to stop the Tories.
Have you not spotted anything at all from last couple of months, particularly last few weeks, of a government tidying around and clearing the decks for a an April General Election campaign?
How long until we find out if your prediction day is right or wrong?