Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Forget the campaign, the curse of Harry Kane could have a bigger impact on th – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited June 8 in General
imageForget the campaign, the curse of Harry Kane could have a bigger impact on the election – politicalbetting.com

Martyn Ziegler in The Times has this little piece that might explain why Sunak called a July election

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543
    Yes, its boring "events" which are utterly contrived and irrelevant. The only one i can think of that made a real difference was May in 2015 and that was because it was only a catastrophic disaster. If she'd shown a hint of the wit she did in her leaving speech it might have been very different.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Doesn't surprise me at all.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/21/three-years-of-pain-how-inflation-drove-the-uk-cost-of-living-crisis

    "Inflation may be back towards the Bank of England’s target, but until recent price rises are matched with higher incomes, most UK households will face lower living standards for some time to come."
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25
    If England are out of the Euros by election day, they want shooting. They don't have a difficult group and then the QF is again on the easier side. If they can win is a different matter with the less than stellar defence filled with injury prone players.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    From header: Alas for Labour the Welsh men’s football team didn’t qualify

    Huge if true. Does the Prime Minister know?
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 586

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    What discipline? I thought science PhDs got £24k. And that most were self funded anyway
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,460

    If England are out of the Euros by election day, they want shooting. They don't have a difficult group and then the QF is again on the easier side. If they can win is a different matter with the less than stellar defence filled with injury prone players.

    If they don't win their group, which they should but... yanno... Ingerland, then they wil probably play Germany in the next round. Possible early bath right there.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25
    megasaur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    What discipline? I thought science PhDs got £24k. And that most were self funded anyway
    Research Council (UKRI) PhD Studentships

    How much funding do Research Council studentships provide?
    At least £18,622 per year as a PhD stipend to help cover living costs.

    https://www.findaphd.com/guides/research-council-studentships

    PhD salary outside of London: In 2023/24 most new PhD students in the UK will receive a PhD stipend worth at least £18,622 per year.
    PhD salary in London: In 2023/24 most new PhD students in London will receive an increased stipend to account for cost of living, which is typically around £20,622 per year.

    https://www.thesavvyscientist.com/how-much-does-a-phd-student-earn/

    I don't know about the percentage of self funded, it might be skewed by oldies doing it as a hobby, but in my experience, that isn't true for 21/22 years old coming out of their degrees. They require the stipend and few are self funded.

    There will be individual special PhD that might pay £24k (there has always been such things, mine was paid above the research coucil rate, but I was the highest paid in my lab), but in general all universities will follow the research councils.

    Edit - There are some PhD these days that are mixed with a job. They pay more, but it isn't a stipend, its taxable income. So £24k but IC / NI.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    edited May 25

    From header: Alas for Labour the Welsh men’s football team didn’t qualify

    Huge if true. Does the Prime Minister know?

    Wales has, in effect, four football clubs - Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham and Newport.

    The Welsh premier league is represented by the mighty metropoli of Bala, Aberystwyth, Connah's Quay and Newtown.

    The current champions are actually from England!

    It is hardly surprising they never qualify for anything...it's as though England only picked from the National League.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    DavidL said:

    Yes, its boring "events" which are utterly contrived and irrelevant. The only one i can think of that made a real difference was May in 2015 and that was because it was only a catastrophic disaster. If she'd shown a hint of the wit she did in her leaving speech it might have been very different.

    It was events and not the dementia tax that cost Theresa May her majority in 2017. Two terrorist outrages, London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert, during the election campaign itself were almost certainly the crucial factor for the former Home Secretary who had axed 20,000 police.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,019
    edited May 25

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    edited May 25
    Our first YouGov Westminster voting intention poll since the election was called (23-24 May)

    Con: 22% (+1 from 21-22 May)
    Lab: 44% (-2)
    Reform UK: 14% (+2)
    Lib Dem: 9% (=)
    Green: 6% (-1)
    SNP: 3% (=)

    Interesting that again there is some correlation betweem Reform and Labour. Not saying its a 'thing' (yet) but how ironic if the Tories began cheerleading Tice to help them hang on in a few, lolz

    Anyway, YouGov with the first 'narrowing' data of the game so far
  • Options
    CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 451
    Look at how Denmark voted in the 1992 eu referendum after winning the European championships against Germany... they were in a rush of nationalistic fervor
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,489
    edited May 25
    'Happy fans are vote Tory fans!'

    If Foden gets injured Labour 120 majority

    If Foden and Bellingham get injured Labour 160 majority
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    edited May 25
    YouGov slso features a big leap in certainty to vote for young people (18 35s)......
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    I have more bad news for you. Under a Labour Government ( should one be elected) you will lose your all you can eat Premier Inn breakfast.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/03/eat-premier-inn-purple-hotels-restaurants-dined-past-life

    Vote Conservative to save your breakfast!
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    edited May 25

    Look at how Denmark voted in the 1992 eu referendum after winning the European championships against Germany... they were in a rush of nationalistic fervor

    Would likely favour Labour now with Union Flag draped Elphicke and Starmer front and centre
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25
    Roger said:

    'Happy fans are vote Tory fans!'

    If Foden gets injured Labour 120 majority

    If Foden and Bellingham get injured Labour 160 majority

    I am not going to be shocked in Southgate finds a way not to play Foden regardless. He really doesn't seem to like him as a player.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,019

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Surely you just recharge it to the client or build into the price ?
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 586

    Look at how Denmark voted in the 1992 eu referendum after winning the European championships against Germany... they were in a rush of nationalistic fervor

    Fake news.

    The Danish referendum was on the 2nd of June 1992.

    Denmark beat Germany in the final of Euro 92 on the 26th of June 1992.
    Norway Swexited in 1905 and went on to win the South Pole in 1911
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    Isn't it rather a myth that England going out of the World Cup in 1970 swung the election?

    Wasn't it the gloomy economic news of rising inflation and unemployment, fear of a further devaluation and a particularly poor set of trade figures a few days before the GE?

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    What is it in the US? $60k? House prices / rent have gone even madder than here.

    Mrs U went the other week and said although inflation is supposed to be better than UK, prices were insane for particularly food / restaurants. $15 for basic fast food now, rather than the famous 99c everything. Plus of course you are expected to tip 20% for basically every interaction (not even just humans, they tip to get a tip on the automated checkout machines).

    $60k isn't going to get your far in the US these days.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    Roger said:

    'Happy fans are vote Tory fans!'

    If Foden gets injured Labour 120 majority

    If Foden and Bellingham get injured Labour 160 majority

    I am not going to be shocked in Southgate finds a way not to play Foden regardless. He really doesn't seem to like him as a player.
    With Rashford not making the cut I think he will stick him out in the left wing but he is most effective when coming through the centre as he has been doing more recently for City. Which makes me think of the Cup final today. Oh lord, another period of agony.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707

    Look at how Denmark voted in the 1992 eu referendum after winning the European championships against Germany... they were in a rush of nationalistic fervor

    Fake news.

    The Danish referendum was on the 2nd of June 1992.

    Denmark beat Germany in the final of Euro 92 on the 26th of June 1992.
    That's a really impressive rejoinder.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,489

    Roger said:

    'Happy fans are vote Tory fans!'

    If Foden gets injured Labour 120 majority

    If Foden and Bellingham get injured Labour 160 majority

    I am not going to be shocked in Southgate finds a way not to play Foden regardless. He really doesn't seem to like him as a player.
    Perhaps thats why United are lining him up. They're not know for employing mangers with judgement.

    (Bellingham's a good player but I'd take him over Bellingham anyday)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    From header: Alas for Labour the Welsh men’s football team didn’t qualify

    Huge if true. Does the Prime Minister know?

    Wales has, in effect, four football clubs - Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham and Newport.

    The Welsh premier league is represented by the mighty metropoli of Bala, Aberystwyth, Connah's Quay and Newtown.

    The current champions are actually from England!

    It is hardly surprising they never qualify for anything...it's as though England only picked from the National League.
    Gone are the days when the fans would be dancing on the streets of Total Network Solutions after triumphing over bitter rivals Flexys Cefn Druids.

    I have often wondered, though. Why is Welsh domestic football in such a poor state? You'd think if Moldova and Slovenia can occasionally get a team into the Champions League group stage, Wales ought to be able to have done it, even just once. But no. I find it strange.
    My guess would be that with the exception of rugby there is simply no money in any sport in Wales, including football. Most Welsh people who follow football (and it is the majority of the population) support English premier league clubs and that's where the money goes.

    Could be wrong, of course.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437
    YG lead down from 30 to 22 in 16 days!!

    TBF no sign of other polls narrowing so nothing for SKS fans to be concerned about yet.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    edited May 25

    YouGov slso features a big leap in certainty to vote for young people (18 35s)......

    If (and it's a very big if):

    1) Voting patterns are entirely determined by age (IRL they explain about 40% of voting preference in each constituency, on average)
    2) Turnout by age group is broadly the same as in previous elections
    3) The YouGov poll is reliable
    4) The England and Wales census is reliable

    Then Labour will win every constituency in England and Wales. The closest would be Isle of Wight East with a 7,000 Labour majority.

    This is obviously nonsense - the largest Labour majority in this projection (26,000) is much smaller than the largest Labour majority in 2019. But it shows that demographics are entirely against the Tories in this election.

    If turnout among younger people is higher than normal... It all gets much closer if you add Reform to the Tory vote (and Green to Labour). But still a clean sweep.

    (I have a really nice graph but I'm worried I will see a UFO later and won't be able to post the photo)
  • Options
    CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 451
    Carnyx said:

    Look at how Denmark voted in the 1992 eu referendum after winning the European championships against Germany... they were in a rush of nationalistic fervor

    Fake news.

    The Danish referendum was on the 2nd of June 1992.

    Denmark beat Germany in the final of Euro 92 on the 26th of June 1992.
    That's a really impressive rejoinder.
    I remember people going bonkers when Denmark got into the final and going totally ballistic when they won against their arch nemesis. Look up the second Schleswig war of 1864 for reference 🤣🤣🤣
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    Foxy said:

    Isn't it rather a myth that England going out of the World Cup in 1970 swung the election?

    Wasn't it the gloomy economic news of rising inflation and unemployment, fear of a further devaluation and a particularly poor set of trade figures a few days before the GE?

    The white heat of stats did for Harold.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25
    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    'Happy fans are vote Tory fans!'

    If Foden gets injured Labour 120 majority

    If Foden and Bellingham get injured Labour 160 majority

    I am not going to be shocked in Southgate finds a way not to play Foden regardless. He really doesn't seem to like him as a player.
    With Rashford not making the cut I think he will stick him out in the left wing but he is most effective when coming through the centre as he has been doing more recently for City. Which makes me think of the Cup final today. Oh lord, another period of agony.
    I was only half joking. I think to be fair, Foden has never shown his best for England. I am sure part of it is the messing about with role in England team, however hopefully he can show his City form over the next few weeks. Firing on all cylinders, Bellingham, Saka, Foden, could be super exciting.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Surely you just recharge it to the client or build into the price ?
    That's my argument but as a big professional services firm, with an audit heritage, approval of the expense is outsourced to teams in India and the Phillipines who are bureaucratic and do everything by the book.

    I am trying to argue for an exception but don't hold out much hope.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    The men’s Euros will have no impact. It’s not far enough into the tournament.

    If it had been after the QF’s or SF’s then perhaps some influence but three group matches and a round of 16 for Scotland and England, though not Wales or Northern Ireland, are not going set pulses racing. The opponents don’t get serious until after the General Election date.

    The only possible impact would be a negative one if either country is knocked out prior to the QF’s.

    Next straw clutch please ;)
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    Wages are much lower in Canada and higher taxes. Plus housing market is just insane anywhere you might want to live. Also, I presume you are hoping Mr Trudeau might get the sack, as somebody who isn't a fan of the old wokey woke, he is the supreme leader of Wokedom.

    The US is fine if you earn well and corporate jobs pay very well. Its much better than UK. I wouldn't want to be on medium salary there though.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,489

    Our first YouGov Westminster voting intention poll since the election was called (23-24 May)

    Con: 22% (+1 from 21-22 May)
    Lab: 44% (-2)
    Reform UK: 14% (+2)
    Lib Dem: 9% (=)
    Green: 6% (-1)
    SNP: 3% (=)

    Interesting that again there is some correlation betweem Reform and Labour. Not saying its a 'thing' (yet) but how ironic if the Tories began cheerleading Tice to help them hang on in a few, lolz

    Anyway, YouGov with the first 'narrowing' data of the game so far

    It's Labour's 'CHANGE' message getting through.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
    I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
    Could have been worse. I still shudder to recall the Paisley B&B into which I was booked when doing some consultancy work c. 1988.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763

    YG lead down from 30 to 22 in 16 days!!

    TBF no sign of other polls narrowing so nothing for SKS fans to be concerned about yet.

    Cross over, what, about a week out from the election?

    Everyone knew the YouGov 30 was bollocks. Robert Hayward thinks the Labour lead is 7 to 9% from the locals. So all to play for then.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    edited May 25
    Ni poll
    🔷SF 26% - (+3 from 2019 election)
    🔷DUP 20% - (-11)
    🔷Alliance 15% - (-2)
    🔷UUP 13% - (+1)
    🔷SDLP 10% (-5)
    🔷TUV 8% (didn't run)

    DUP buckling, SDLP lose their seats, UUP back at Westminster

    https://x.com/SuzyJourno/status/1794266667515863109?t=J5N6FqHBS4IZFdsB5XoE0g&s=19
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    'Happy fans are vote Tory fans!'

    If Foden gets injured Labour 120 majority

    If Foden and Bellingham get injured Labour 160 majority

    I am not going to be shocked in Southgate finds a way not to play Foden regardless. He really doesn't seem to like him as a player.
    With Rashford not making the cut I think he will stick him out in the left wing but he is most effective when coming through the centre as he has been doing more recently for City. Which makes me think of the Cup final today. Oh lord, another period of agony.
    I was only half joking. I think to be fair, Foden has never shown his best for England. I am sure part of it is the messing about with role in England team, however hopefully he can show his City form over the next few weeks. Firing on all cylinders, Bellingham, Saka, Foden, could be super exciting.
    As has already been pointed out its at the back England have issues, particularly without Shaw, but going forward they are powerful indeed. Scotland, on the other hand, really struggle for goals but generally do well in defence. I personally would be tempted to play McTominay up front given the goals he has got this season.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543
    Roger said:

    Our first YouGov Westminster voting intention poll since the election was called (23-24 May)

    Con: 22% (+1 from 21-22 May)
    Lab: 44% (-2)
    Reform UK: 14% (+2)
    Lib Dem: 9% (=)
    Green: 6% (-1)
    SNP: 3% (=)

    Interesting that again there is some correlation betweem Reform and Labour. Not saying its a 'thing' (yet) but how ironic if the Tories began cheerleading Tice to help them hang on in a few, lolz

    Anyway, YouGov with the first 'narrowing' data of the game so far

    It's Labour's 'CHANGE' message getting through.
    A reducing Labour lead is perhaps not the change they were looking for!
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763
    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
    I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
    I once stayed in the Sun Inn at Eastwood. The attic room was so grim, although the breakfast excellent,and the cost not absurdity cheap, I'd rather drive home and come back next day.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    Wages are much lower in Canada and higher taxes. Plus housing market is just insane anywhere you might want to live. Also, I presume you are hoping Mr Trudeau might get the sack, as somebody who isn't a fan of the old wokey woke, he is the supreme leader of Wokedom.

    The US is fine if you earn well and corporate jobs pay very well. Its much better than UK. I wouldn't want to be on medium salary there though.
    I could just pursue Conservative governments around the Anglosphere ad-infinitum, provided the cycles remain out of synch 👍

    Worth a thought..
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    Foxy said:

    Isn't it rather a myth that England going out of the World Cup in 1970 swung the election?

    Wasn't it the gloomy economic news of rising inflation and unemployment, fear of a further devaluation and a particularly poor set of trade figures a few days before the GE?

    It is hard to be certain. It has even been suggested it was the abolition of pirate radio that turned younger voters off the government. We know (see header) sporting triumphs and disasters have an effect, and this falls into the latter category.

    Of the economic news you mention, it is perhaps the balance of payments that was most important. Inflation and unemployment were known factors and would not have caused a last minute reversal.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,019

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Surely you just recharge it to the client or build into the price ?
    That's my argument but as a big professional services firm, with an audit heritage, approval of the expense is outsourced to teams in India and the Phillipines who are bureaucratic and do everything by the book.

    I am trying to argue for an exception but don't hold out much hope.
    Honestly I'm amazed you don't have the power to overrule something like that at your salary level.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25
    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
    I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
    Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....

    Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
  • Options
    guybrushguybrush Posts: 248

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    +1 for the US. In the last 3 months I've come to the same conclusion. Hoping Biden stays in and keeps investing in infrastructure.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    guybrush said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    +1 for the US. In the last 3 months I've come to the same conclusion. Hoping Biden stays in and keeps investing in infrastructure.
    At this rate won't just be Sunak, but half of PB emigrating to the US.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    YouGov slso features a big leap in certainty to vote for young people (18 35s)......

    So you are saying the Labour vote is overstated?
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,532
    England won't win Euro 2024

    But it will have * all impact on the Election 😈
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    edited May 25
    Two predictions
    1) Sunak is planning a 'surprise' plane load of immigrants to Rwanda w/c 24 June
    2) todays strategy session is partly about drafting Boris into one of the candidateless seats, Sunak having decided to quit his seat after summer recess. Boris' intervention yesterday tells me he is running somewhere
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462
    News summary on Magic: "the Tories hint at tax breaks for high earners, while Labour concentrates on the cost of living crisis..." - sums up why the Tories will get their arse handed to them on a plate.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
    What's the cost of a hotel? Cost of the building and the cost of staff, mostly. And whilst commercial property is cheap, if you can get permission to do the conversion, staff are expensive these days. The right thing to do, but it has consequences.

    (Is there also a factor of the collapse of the asylum system and ongoing use of hotels sucking up the capacity which previously would have been cheap last minute bookings?)
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,701
    edited May 25
    Anyone who thinks flights to Rwanda are a gamechanger is absolutely deluding themself.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
    I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
    Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....

    Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
    Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.

    Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,029
    Dura_Ace said:

    If England are out of the Euros by election day, they want shooting. They don't have a difficult group and then the QF is again on the easier side. If they can win is a different matter with the less than stellar defence filled with injury prone players.

    If they don't win their group, which they should but... yanno... Ingerland, then they wil probably play Germany in the next round. Possible early bath right there.
    Germany will have something to prove after losing their opening match and just scraping their group. England better watch out in that scenario.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    DavidL said:

    YouGov slso features a big leap in certainty to vote for young people (18 35s)......

    So you are saying the Labour vote is overstated?
    No. I was commenting on it as notable. Ive no idea whether the lead is over or understated
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707

    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.

    Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    Carnyx said:

    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.

    Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
    I found the image a pleasing one.

    Of course I know that all the tech bros have moved on the USB sticks for their CVs now.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    You should give it a go. I massively enjoyed the five years we lived in the States. Be prepared for significant culture shock though, culturally it is nothing like the UK, in ways that are both good and bad.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460

    ToryJim said:



    ToryJim said:



    Foxy said:

    https://x.com/kiranstacey/status/1794122073373081653?s=46

    BREAKING: Sunak is going to take a day off the trail tomorrow in a highly unusual move so early in the campaign. He will spend it at home in talks with his senior aides. But the Tories insist this is NOT a campaign relaunch.

    No wonder we have a productivity problem in the UK when the top boss doesn't work overtime at a crucial time.
    Time spent planning is usually time well spent, but surely the time should have been taken last weekend?
    I’m sure planning has been done prior to kickoff. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend I can forgive Sunak wanting to take a day to firm up some of the details of the campaign plan and possibly to get some decent time with his wife and children before the full onslaught. I hope Keir and Ed Davey avail themselves of similar opportunities.

    I hope the press get bored with trying to turn everything Rishi does into some new gaffe.

    Back in the real world, the first days of Rishi's campaign have seen gaffe after gaffe so it is not surprising he will take a day off to reset. As I said earlier, this has been 2017 redux so kudos to Rishi for realising things are going pear-shaped and trying to address that.

    I tbink the gaffes have been overdone by the journalists, but Sunak doesn't seem to have anything to announce. He is pottering around making these visits with nothing really to say other than weird small talk and softball questions. There are no policies.
    Starmer isn’t exactly heavy on policies either. That’s entirely understandable at this point in the election. The gaffe narrative is overblown but then journalists often try to fit the facts into the narrative rather than allowing the narrative to flow from the facts. Now that wash up is over and Parliament stands prorogued the campaign will ramp up. I just hope the media decides to get bored with the current game.
    Weirdly Hunt is in the Telegraph today giving some policy, saying he will end the cliffedge at £100k. Now it is actually right to thing to do and can be done without costing money, you can jiggle thresholds. Its a barrier to productivity and growth to have people refusing to take a payrise to just over £100k, instead doing less hours, longer holidays, etc. But 90% of the country won't care. It looks very out of touch.
    Ok, good, and I'm sort of like: why the fuck hasn't that been addressed over the last 14 years?

    It's just the sort of thing that Tory governments are meant to sort out.

    There's so much shithouse gesture politics these days, devoid of substance or logic, and that applies to all the political parties who chase soundbites, memes, and the chance to piss over each other rather than sensible long-term decisions.
    Well yes. For 14 years they have been dicking about for instance over IC + NI. They could have sorted that, combined them, sorted out the thresholds etc.

    But again its symptom of politicians won't take difficult decisions that might have losers / be unpopular in the short term.
    Even when they had the majority to handle it!
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,489
    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
    I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
    Glasgow is the new next big thing. I did a job there a while ago and it was a very fun city. I went back 2 years ago and it had improved a lot and since I've heard nothing but good things about it.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,567

    England won't win Euro 2024

    But it will have * all impact on the Election 😈

    We were so near and yet so far in 2021!!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460

    Carnyx said:

    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.

    Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
    I found the image a pleasing one.

    Of course I know that all the tech bros have moved on the USB sticks for their CVs now.
    All in the cloud.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,326
    edited May 25
    Carnyx said:

    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.

    Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
    So we can look up his stuff on GitHub? PrimeMinister.nim? Patch #322: Stop asking about football.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    edited May 25

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    Wages are much lower in Canada and higher taxes. Plus housing market is just insane anywhere you might want to live. Also, I presume you are hoping Mr Trudeau might get the sack, as somebody who isn't a fan of the old wokey woke, he is the supreme leader of Wokedom.

    The US is fine if you earn well and corporate jobs pay very well. Its much better than UK. I wouldn't want to be on medium salary there though.
    I could just pursue Conservative governments around the Anglosphere ad-infinitum, provided the cycles remain out of synch 👍

    Worth a thought..
    Good morning

    Our eldest son and our Canadian daughter in law are in from Vancouver and are withering about Trudeau, and say the conservatives will win the election in Canada next year
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    edited May 25

    Two predictions
    1) Sunak is planning a 'surprise' plane load of immigrants to Rwanda w/c 24 June
    2) todays strategy session is partly about drafting Boris into one of the candidateless seats, Sunak having decided to quit his seat after summer recess. Boris' intervention yesterday tells me he is running somewhere

    Take the 10/1 against Boris winning a seat, if you believe that. (25 or 33/1 next leader.)

    ETA 10/1 is with Skybet. I've not made an exhaustive search of all the books.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    When I did my PhD in the early 2000s I had enough money that, combined with my wife's junior civil servant salary and about £30k in savings from my previous job, we could buy our first home aged 26. Sucks being young now, they are poorer.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Surely you just recharge it to the client or build into the price ?
    That's my argument but as a big professional services firm, with an audit heritage, approval of the expense is outsourced to teams in India and the Phillipines who are bureaucratic and do everything by the book.

    I am trying to argue for an exception but don't hold out much hope.
    Honestly I'm amazed you don't have the power to overrule something like that at your salary level.
    No such luck. You have to be an equity partner. And even then you only get a vote in the governance of the firm.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    When I did my PhD in the early 2000s I had enough money that, combined with my wife's junior civil servant salary and about £30k in savings from my previous job, we could buy our first home aged 26. Sucks being young now, they are poorer.
    Same here. I don't think anybody I knew struggled on their stipend. You weren't giving it the Harry Enfield "loads of money", but it wasn't hard to get by. I don't think I ever really looked at what I was spending on food or having a night out. Given no IC tax, council tax, etc, I doubt I was much worse off than those on graduate schemes.

    With cost of food, rent, utilities, £18.5k a year isn't going to go far, especially at a uni located in a nicer city (which most of the top ones are).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460

    Ni poll
    🔷SF 26% - (+3 from 2019 election)
    🔷DUP 20% - (-11)
    🔷Alliance 15% - (-2)
    🔷UUP 13% - (+1)
    🔷SDLP 10% (-5)
    🔷TUV 8% (didn't run)

    DUP buckling, SDLP lose their seats, UUP back at Westminster

    https://x.com/SuzyJourno/status/1794266667515863109?t=J5N6FqHBS4IZFdsB5XoE0g&s=19

    SF really appear to have weathered the changes of the 21st century far better than the DUP (despite the latter initially doing well to eclipse the UUP).
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    News summary on Magic: "the Tories hint at tax breaks for high earners, while Labour concentrates on the cost of living crisis..." - sums up why the Tories will get their arse handed to them on a plate.

    Or it tells you the Tories are fighting a defensive strategy and Labour are playing to win.

    Sunak's job is to pick the strategy that will maximise the number of seats he gets. If he tried the latter he might get no votes at all.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    guybrush said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    +1 for the US. In the last 3 months I've come to the same conclusion. Hoping Biden stays in and keeps investing in infrastructure.
    At this rate won't just be Sunak, but half of PB emigrating to the US.
    This is how brain drains happen.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited May 25
    Carnyx said:

    Look at how Denmark voted in the 1992 eu referendum after winning the European championships against Germany... they were in a rush of nationalistic fervor

    Fake news.

    The Danish referendum was on the 2nd of June 1992.

    Denmark beat Germany in the final of Euro 92 on the 26th of June 1992.
    That's a really impressive rejoinder.
    A veritable red-nosed rejoinder, indeed.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,029
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
    I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
    Huh? Is there some kind of event on? Staying in Glasgow shouldn't cost you that much unless you have some very specific requirements. Just look on Google Maps right now and you'll see it's possible to get decent stuff for way south of £100 per night, especially if you don't mind a 10 minute journey into the centre.
    Taps side of nose: Unionist surcharge.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,543

    guybrush said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    +1 for the US. In the last 3 months I've come to the same conclusion. Hoping Biden stays in and keeps investing in infrastructure.
    At this rate won't just be Sunak, but half of PB emigrating to the US.
    This is how brain drains happen.
    If you go won't you send me a letter from America...

    PB is going to get pretty dull otherwise.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25

    guybrush said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    +1 for the US. In the last 3 months I've come to the same conclusion. Hoping Biden stays in and keeps investing in infrastructure.
    At this rate won't just be Sunak, but half of PB emigrating to the US.
    This is how brain drains happen.
    It is why I asked the other day. The 600k a year leaving (which is also at record highs). Who are these people. Are they all the students who have come to do a dodgy BSc / MSc, are they people who have finished their PhDs, are they highly qualified UK citizens?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Something weird.

    Small town in Hampshire. Big village really. Yesterday at 3pm I had an appointment at my accountant.

    Four protestors (all but one with grey hair) outside the town all. Made no noise. One had a massive Palestinian flag. The others held up a banner saying: 'ceasefire now'. They were there for 30 minutes - during which no-one paid them the slightest bit of attention, not that there many around anyway - and then they left.

    What on earth is going on?
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,462

    News summary on Magic: "the Tories hint at tax breaks for high earners, while Labour concentrates on the cost of living crisis..." - sums up why the Tories will get their arse handed to them on a plate.

    Or it tells you the Tories are fighting a defensive strategy and Labour are playing to win.

    Sunak's job is to pick the strategy that will maximise the number of seats he gets. If he tried the latter he might get no votes at all.
    Maybe, but I wonder if that old Tory base of high earners still constitutes their bedrock of support. Plenty of them were turned off the Tories by Brexit and the Trussterfuck. I'd have thought something around Rwanda is their best bet for a core vote strategy. But you are probably better placed to understand this than I am.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    Wages are much lower in Canada and higher taxes. Plus housing market is just insane anywhere you might want to live. Also, I presume you are hoping Mr Trudeau might get the sack, as somebody who isn't a fan of the old wokey woke, he is the supreme leader of Wokedom.

    The US is fine if you earn well and corporate jobs pay very well. Its much better than UK. I wouldn't want to be on medium salary there though.
    Trudeau is a tool.

    Some of us recognised that from Day One, but it took most of Canada a bit of time to wake up to that.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,645
    edited May 25
    kle4 said:

    Ni poll
    🔷SF 26% - (+3 from 2019 election)
    🔷DUP 20% - (-11)
    🔷Alliance 15% - (-2)
    🔷UUP 13% - (+1)
    🔷SDLP 10% (-5)
    🔷TUV 8% (didn't run)

    DUP buckling, SDLP lose their seats, UUP back at Westminster

    https://x.com/SuzyJourno/status/1794266667515863109?t=J5N6FqHBS4IZFdsB5XoE0g&s=19

    SF really appear to have weathered the changes of the 21st century far better than the DUP (despite the latter initially doing well to eclipse the UUP).
    I’d expect most of that TUV vote to go DUP on the day. But, if those were the numbers, Alliance would win East Belfast from DUP, and the successor to South Belfast from SDLP and be close in Lagan Valley. UUP would win South Antrim.

    Unionist tactical voting may help SDLP hold Foyle.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946

    Two predictions
    1) Sunak is planning a 'surprise' plane load of immigrants to Rwanda w/c 24 June
    2) todays strategy session is partly about drafting Boris into one of the candidateless seats, Sunak having decided to quit his seat after summer recess. Boris' intervention yesterday tells me he is running somewhere

    Take the 10/1 against Boris winning a seat, if you believe that. (25 or 33/1 next leader.)

    ETA 10/1 is with Skybet. I've not made an exhaustive search of all the books.
    Ooooh nice, some nibblage might be required
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 79,291
    edited May 25

    Something weird.

    Small town in Hampshire. Big village really. Yesterday at 3pm I had an appointment at my accountant.

    Four protestors (all but one with grey hair) outside the town all. Made no noise. One had a massive Palestinian flag. The others held up a banner saying: 'ceasefire now'. They were there for 30 minutes - during which no-one paid them the slightest bit of attention, not that there many around anyway - and then they left.

    What on earth is going on?

    Probably the same mob that do vandalism in the name of eco movement. Its always people who don't need to be a doing a job, so its always some students during an MSc / PhD in some bollocks with a posho name from a rich family or oldies who have retired and now spend their days slow marching and sit-in protests.

    Grannies for Gaza / Greta....

    e.g https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/05/13/climate-protestors-charged-over-magna-carta-attack-in-london

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    Something weird.

    Small town in Hampshire. Big village really. Yesterday at 3pm I had an appointment at my accountant.

    Four protestors (all but one with grey hair) outside the town all. Made no noise. One had a massive Palestinian flag. The others held up a banner saying: 'ceasefire now'. They were there for 30 minutes - during which no-one paid them the slightest bit of attention, not that there many around anyway - and then they left.

    What on earth is going on?

    Probably the same mob that do vandalism in the name of eco movement. Its always people who don't need to be a doing a job, so its always some students during an MSc / PhD in some bollocks with a posho name from a rich family or oldies who have retired and now spend their days slow marching and sit-in protests.
    Yes, probably.

    I was wondering if it was some sort of groupie social media challenge where they have to "raise the flag" where they live, or something, and get it on Twatter.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    I haven't been posting much recently partly as we are spending time with our son and daughter visiting us from Vancouver

    However, I do read some posters asking why Sunak called the election for 4th July

    Sunak, for all his faults, knows economics and he looked into the Autumn and concluded that tax cuts were impossible and with the dreadful PSBR he knew the next government will have to slash spending and increase taxes which is not sustainable politically for him

    Furthermore, his party were in a public civil war with the possibility they could try to vonc him, so he literally 'pulled the pin' and in that one decision not only handed the keys of no 10 to Starmer but ensured his party would face their deserved comeuppance and time in opposition to decide just who they are and who they want to represent

    It seems 30% plus of the intake of mps will be new which will be interesting to witness

    I would just add that Sunak has handed Labour an early present and to be fair, I do not like some of the current abuse he is receiving which is unnecessary and may please the haters but does nothing to further political debate and the safety to all those brave enough to stand for public office in todays environment
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.

    I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.

    Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
    Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
    Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
    I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
    Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....

    Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
    Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.

    Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
    The crackdown on STLs, perhaps. The tourism pressure is being passed onto visitors rather than residents, as it should.

    In the medium term, the market will respond and more hotels will be built in Edinburgh (particularly along the new tram line in Leith/Newhaven) which is good news for everyone.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,460
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.

    Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
    I found the image a pleasing one.

    Of course I know that all the tech bros have moved on the USB sticks for their CVs now.
    All in the cloud.
    One of my ex-students puts affiliate marketing links, ads and discount codes on his CV. He reckons he's made quite a bit of money doing it but doesn't seem to have a job and seems to spend his days crewing yachts around the Greek islands.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,280

    Carnyx said:

    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.

    Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
    I found the image a pleasing one.

    Of course I know that all the tech bros have moved on the USB sticks for their CVs now.
    QR code to LinkedIn profile surely
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,460
    DavidL said:

    guybrush said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    If you want to realise how poor we are as a nation, listen to the Dave Ramsey show and consider the median UK salary is equivalent to $45,000
    I'm starting to be tempted to move there.

    I'd be massively better off in the US, I think, even factoring in healthcare.

    Main bearing is I don't particularly like the US. I'd consider Canada.
    +1 for the US. In the last 3 months I've come to the same conclusion. Hoping Biden stays in and keeps investing in infrastructure.
    At this rate won't just be Sunak, but half of PB emigrating to the US.
    This is how brain drains happen.
    If you go won't you send me a letter from America...

    PB is going to get pretty dull otherwise.
    It's always the soi disant patriots that want to quit the country...
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.

    Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
    I found the image a pleasing one.

    Of course I know that all the tech bros have moved on the USB sticks for their CVs now.
    All in the cloud.
    One of my ex-students puts affiliate marketing links, ads and discount codes on his CV. He reckons he's made quite a bit of money doing it but doesn't seem to have a job and seems to spend his days crewing yachts around the Greek islands.
    A noble profession.
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,238
    Farooq said:

    viewcode said:

    Carnyx said:

    Let's hope something good comes of Sunak's conference today - like him heading to California with a sheath of photocopied CVs.

    Photocopied CVs? Bit Neolithic there, mate. He's a tech bro.
    So we can look up his stuff on GitHub? PrimeMinister.nim? Patch #322: Stop asking about football.
    issues: isopen
    16,384 results
    This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 4, 2024.
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,238
    Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru are presumably desperately hoping that Geraint Thomas can get eight minutes back on Tadej Pogacar in today's penultimate stage of the Giro d'Italia.

    (spoiler: he can't)
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,229

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.

    Such a confusing message.

    £100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
    Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
    Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.

    The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.

    Real leaders lead.
    This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
    Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.

    Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".

    Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
    Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.

    It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.

    On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.

    Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?

    £65,000.
    A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.

    Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
    No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.

    But, your comment is very revealing.

    It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
    Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
    Now a salary of 65k.

    Labour = taxes up
    I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.

    I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.

    Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
    When I did my PhD in the early 2000s I had enough money that, combined with my wife's junior civil servant salary and about £30k in savings from my previous job, we could buy our first home aged 26. Sucks being young now, they are poorer.
    My PhD / D.Phil was a placement so I got a bit more than the stipend but it was certainly enough. I saved about 8k
    (in the mid 90s) over 3 years, although I am cheap. It was useful research though and not in some obscure bit of literature.

    Going back to the stupid thresholds - because I'm cheap and live somewhere cheap - never mind the 100k threshold, I cut my hours rather than pay 40% tax. All stupid cut-offs have consequences.
This discussion has been closed.