So, we're down to 343 Conservative MPs. Is that the final number we end this sad, sorry parliament on? Or will there be further drama right at the end?
I see they restored the whip to Matt Hancock last week on compassionate grounds or something - have you included him in your tally? I have no doubt you would want your calculations to be accurate (although in that case some of them are so semi-detached these days you might have to start using decimal places.)
No, I used the Wikipedia figure after first checking Lucy Allen's update had been noted. I made no checks other than that. Looks to me like Hatt Mancock hasn't been updated. So my figure may be wrong but ICBA to work out how much, all of a sudden it seems like a lot of bother for no reward
Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.
Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly. Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
Yep agree. It should be increased, but just increasing it for pensioners is taking the p*ss and I'm a pensioner.
The thing is it’s a complete none story - next year it will need to be raised for pensioners anyway because the state pension is about to cross that threshold.
Alternatively, clawing back 20% of the amount over the threshold would be a good way of taking the inflationary heat out of the triple lock.
The most recent budget froze thresholds until April 2028 - there's no money available to increase them before then.
I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.
She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
They may well have been no worse off had they kept her (if the fall had been slightly less precipitous she might have weathered it), so given she really was offering a new approach it is conceivable some would go for her again, especially as those who remain will be in the safest seats and as a result possibly the more ideologically minded.
But I think she will still bear a brunt of anger for the whole debacle, and they'll go for fresh hands.
They'll only have 100-130 to choose from, so options will be limited.
in an alternative universe, Truss stayed on long enough to weather the storm but gets forced into an earlier election. Loses but has a clear message so doesn't lose as badly as Sunak is about to.
I suspect she might have weathered the storm if she'd paused for a few weeks after QEII's death, rather than proceeding with the mini-budget immediately after the funeral. And if she'd done so, it's certainly possible that she'd have been able to grow into the job before the (as you say, inevitable) early election.
But even if she had, I'm not sure that she'd have become any more palatable to MPs and CCHQ - and without their support, she'd probably have found herself in the same position Rishi is now, just a year earlier.
The problem with Truss was she had an image problem even before she became PM. She was also incapable of growing into the job because she was, I am afraid to say, incapable of doing the job in the first place.
Tory MPs were faced with a party gutted of talent at the time of Boris’ downfall; but they should never have allowed second-rate politicians like Truss and Sunak to rise to the top in the leadership stakes. Even Penny M, who I personally have a lot of time for, was too inexperienced to be in the top 3 - she is a future talent who should learn the ropes in a LOTO role, not to be parachuted into Number 10 in the middle of a parliament.
In hindsight the party would have been much better putting a figure like Gove or Hunt in charge, no matter the fact the membership weren’t fans. No those figures may not have been to the Party’s ideological tastes, but they are substantial figures with political nous and they could at least have kept the ship steady until the GE. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.
It looks as if The Times are going to lead with their Exclusive
You beat me to it. The times is being very labour friendly.... tell you what: labour is running a tight ship. Their campaign it light years ahead of the tories. I suspect their latest proposal has done nothing but bring the youth vote out for Labour. What were they thinking
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
'setbacks and periods of regression'
But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
Sounds lovely in principle but the lack of medicine would not be ideal.
It looks as if The Times are going to lead with their Exclusive
You beat me to it. The times is being very labour friendly.... tell you what: labour is running a tight ship. Their campaign it light years ahead of the tories.
There's a long way to go, but 2019 really seems to have gotten through to their MP, officials, and even the base.
I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.
She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
They may well have been no worse off had they kept her (if the fall had been slightly less precipitous she might have weathered it), so given she really was offering a new approach it is conceivable some would go for her again, especially as those who remain will be in the safest seats and as a result possibly the more ideologically minded.
But I think she will still bear a brunt of anger for the whole debacle, and they'll go for fresh hands.
They'll only have 100-130 to choose from, so options will be limited.
in an alternative universe, Truss stayed on long enough to weather the storm but gets forced into an earlier election. Loses but has a clear message so doesn't lose as badly as Sunak is about to.
I suspect she might have weathered the storm if she'd paused for a few weeks after QEII's death, rather than proceeding with the mini-budget immediately after the funeral. And if she'd done so, it's certainly possible that she'd have been able to grow into the job before the (as you say, inevitable) early election.
But even if she had, I'm not sure that she'd have become any more palatable to MPs and CCHQ - and without their support, she'd probably have found herself in the same position Rishi is now, just a year earlier.
One of the things Kwarteng said in his interestingly frank interview with Stewart & Campbell was (if I remember correctly) that Truss wasn't interested in suggestions to pause/slow down/reassess -- everything had to be done right now.
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
'setbacks and periods of regression'
But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
What if you can't choose what station you'll get in life? Anything more than the very recent past would probably be a serious gamble.
The phrase “three score years and ten” appears in The Bible for a reason. The Biblical allusion to a lifespan was there because even then, if you made it past childhood (v dodgy admittedly), the chances of making 70 were not bad.
It looks as if The Times are going to lead with their Exclusive
You beat me to it. The times is being very labour friendly.... tell you what: labour is running a tight ship. Their campaign it light years ahead of the tories. I suspect their latest proposal has done nothing but bring the youth vote out for Labour. What were they thinking
Yes indeed.
Morgan McSweeney, Labour campaign manager for anyone who didn’t know, seems to be very on the ball so far.
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
I think the world is better now than in 1574, but your picture of the sixteenth century is exaggerated. The biggest concentrations of the world population were in Asia, in Ming China and the Delhi Sultanate in particular. Lives were sometimes short and brutal there, but frequently not. Slavery was uncommon or non-existent in much of the world. Etc.
500 years is 1524 not 1574 but whatever...
Lives were short and brutal everywhere 500 years ago, punishments were harsh, restrictions on individuals severe e.g.:
Ming China: "It was illegal for commoners to wear fine silk or dress in bright red, dark green or yellow colors; nor could they wear boots or guan hats. Women could not use ornaments made from gold, jade, pearl or emerald. Merchants and their families were further banned from using silk."
The Delhi Sultanate"Muslim merchants were granted exclusive permits and monopoly in these "mandis" to buy and resell at official prices. No one is other than these merchants could buy from farmers or sell in cities. Those found violating these "mandi" rules were severely punished, often by mutilation."
(both from wiki)
PS 'slavery or serfdom'
However. In Ming China homosexuality was simply accepted as a thing some people did. Main reason the first Jesuit missionaries considered it an inferior civilisation despite being obviously more advanced than Europe in almost every way conceivable.
It looks as if The Times are going to lead with their Exclusive
You beat me to it. The times is being very labour friendly.... tell you what: labour is running a tight ship. Their campaign it light years ahead of the tories. I suspect their latest proposal has done nothing but bring the youth vote out for Labour. What were they thinking
And both those things- the businessmen writing the letter and The Times running with it- tell us a lot about how they expect the election to go. Nothing that's not blooming obvious, but there you go.
It's going to be really interesting to see how The Sun finesses it. They (and Murdoch) may not like Starmer, but they hate losers even more.
Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.
Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly. Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
Yep agree. It should be increased, but just increasing it for pensioners is taking the p*ss and I'm a pensioner.
The thing is it’s a complete none story - next year it will need to be raised for pensioners anyway because the state pension is about to cross that threshold.
Alternatively, clawing back 20% of the amount over the threshold would be a good way of taking the inflationary heat out of the triple lock.
The most recent budget froze thresholds until April 2028 - there's no money available to increase them before then.
While I agree the administrative nightmare it would create is such that pragmatically increasing the tax limit to the basic state pension is the only sane option otherwise the poorest are going to be presented with small tax bills which they will forget to pay and end up being fined. The optics are so bad - a cheat makes sense..
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
'setbacks and periods of regression'
But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
What if you can't choose what station you'll get in life? Anything more than the very recent past would probably be a serious gamble.
The phrase “three score years and ten” appears in The Bible for a reason. The Biblical allusion to a lifespan was there because even then, if you made it past childhood (v dodgy admittedly), the chances of making 70 were not bad.
I think I'd want to see some proper research before I believed that even half the population reached 70 three and a half thousand years ago
Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.
Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly. Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
Yep agree. It should be increased, but just increasing it for pensioners is taking the p*ss and I'm a pensioner.
The thing is it’s a complete none story - next year it will need to be raised for pensioners anyway because the state pension is about to cross that threshold.
Alternatively, clawing back 20% of the amount over the threshold would be a good way of taking the inflationary heat out of the triple lock.
The most recent budget froze thresholds until April 2028 - there's no money available to increase them before then.
While I agree the administrative nightmare it would create is such that pragmatically increasing the tax limit to the basic state pension is the only sane option otherwise the poorest are going to be presented with small tax bills which they will forget to pay and end up being fined. The optics are so bad - a cheat makes sense..
But then. Why should someone working have to pay tax on an income lower than a pension?
Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.
Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly. Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
Yep agree. It should be increased, but just increasing it for pensioners is taking the p*ss and I'm a pensioner.
The thing is it’s a complete none story - next year it will need to be raised for pensioners anyway because the state pension is about to cross that threshold.
Alternatively, clawing back 20% of the amount over the threshold would be a good way of taking the inflationary heat out of the triple lock.
The most recent budget froze thresholds until April 2028 - there's no money available to increase them before then.
While I agree the administrative nightmare it would create is such that pragmatically increasing the tax limit to the basic state pension is the only sane option otherwise the poorest are going to be presented with small tax bills which they will forget to pay and end up being fined. The optics are so bad - a cheat makes sense..
But then. Why should someone working have to pay tax on an income lower than a pension?
As @Malmesbury points out the fix would be to raise the threshold in line with the state pension…
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
At what point can the friends of the Conservatives stage an interdevention?
They always talk about tax avoidance, the big question is how much are they planning to raise by clamping down on it because some would be easy to get and some virtually impossible. Dan Neidle covers it today if anyone wants a longer read.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.
Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly. Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
Yep agree. It should be increased, but just increasing it for pensioners is taking the p*ss and I'm a pensioner.
The thing is it’s a complete none story - next year it will need to be raised for pensioners anyway because the state pension is about to cross that threshold.
Alternatively, clawing back 20% of the amount over the threshold would be a good way of taking the inflationary heat out of the triple lock.
The most recent budget froze thresholds until April 2028 - there's no money available to increase them before then.
While I agree the administrative nightmare it would create is such that pragmatically increasing the tax limit to the basic state pension is the only sane option otherwise the poorest are going to be presented with small tax bills which they will forget to pay and end up being fined. The optics are so bad - a cheat makes sense..
But then. Why should someone working have to pay tax on an income lower than a pension?
As @Malmesbury points out the fix would be to raise the threshold in line with the state pension…
It would. But they've already budgeted for freezing thresholds.
@jamesrbuk And here it is: “triple lock plus” – an increase to the tax-free allowance on income tax, but *only for pensioners*.
This adds a lot of complexity to the tax system and is clearly meant to appease core Tory voters (🧵)
It is quite tricky for the Tories as it runs directly counter to the last two high-profile tax cuts the party made in government – cutting national insurance doesn’t benefit pensioners.
This is something of a reversal of that philosophy of targeting tax cuts at workers.
It’s also poorly targeted: a millionaire pensioner will benefit from this just as much as one in poverty.
It’s bad spending to reduce poverty, too: pensioners have lower poverty levels than families with children and even just working age adults.
So it’s a complicated policy that’s hard to rationalise, will make the tax system more complex, isn’t in line with the government’s big pre-election tax cuts, and which will benefit ultra-rich retirees.
Are the Tories giving up on voters under 67 entirely?
The Tory core vote strategy means their manifesto is wholly unsuitable for governing, but it may well be enough to win them 150-200 seats and have a stable base for opposition.
Out of interest, has anyone seen a list of which constituencies Alba plan to stand in? Alex Salmond lives in ANME in the next village from mine, surely he wants to have a go? He used to be the MP here...
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
On the contrary, huge numbers of people are looking forward to one specific change in the next few weeks.
Proper core vote strategy from the tories. Now just showering the 68 + year olds with money, whilst the young get access to, err, national service
It’s ridiculously cynical politics, but they need to get the core pensioner vote out. The national service idea felt like a self-inflicted wound, this one makes them look ridiculously out of touch to many voters, but it’s about holding onto those seats now. I can see the reasoning behind it, even if, as I say, it’s very cynical.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
"God forbid young people should be asked to do something!" Ben Wallace today. Such as have a job. Study. Work weekends to pay for your study.
Now we have the quadruple lock on pensions from Sunak . And it will be paid for by clamping down on tax avoidance . It’s amazing how much heavy lifting that’s doing ! Labour really needs to join the club and start offering out bribes from the seemingly endless cash machine that is clamping down on tax avoidance !
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Actually School is not mandatory and never has been in this country. You can educate your children at home or in a suitable group
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
'setbacks and periods of regression'
But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
Sounds lovely in principle but the lack of medicine would not be ideal.
That's another £33.5bn a year on top of their existing black hole, then.
Oh, hang on... they'd be doing this only for pensioners?!
Fucking hell. This is kamikaze stuff. Why would anyone under 68 even remotely consider voting for them?
To a reasonable order of magnitude approximation, they aren't.
(This is a hilarious example of the problem with being an incumbent government. The only reason this is an issue is because some nitwit is freezing the income tax threshold for the best part of a decade. And if the Prime Minister ever finds who that nitwit is, by golly he's in trouble.)
At what point can the friends of the Conservatives stage an interdevention?
They always talk about tax avoidance, the big question is how much are they planning to raise by clamping down on it because some would be easy to get and some virtually impossible. Dan Neidle covers it today if anyone wants a longer read.
And if they want a medium sized read there’s this pithy summary too
The Tory core vote strategy means their manifesto is wholly unsuitable for governing, but it may well be enough to win them 150-200 seats and have a stable base for opposition.
It's not much of an aspiration, but getting to 150 could be a struggle now so they need to pander even harder than parties already do.
Problem is if the public don't trust you what might be a dream promise just snaps them awake in shock and disbelief.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
"God forbid young people should be asked to do something!" Ben Wallace today. Such as have a job. Study. Work weekends to pay for your study.
Weekends - I know of a fair number of students with weekday work and very carefully chosen options...
Now we have the quadruple lock on pensions from Sunak . And it will be paid for by clamping down on tax avoidance . It’s amazing how much heavy lifting that’s doing ! Labour really needs to join the club and start offering out bribes from the seemingly endless cash machine that is clamping down on tax avoidance !
Labour have already used it fot their first steps wheeze
“Well, in the morning we’re going to be saying that anyone over the age of 61 has trouble staying awake, and then at half past ten at night we’re gonna do the big announcement on pensions.”
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
'setbacks and periods of regression'
But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
What if you can't choose what station you'll get in life? Anything more than the very recent past would probably be a serious gamble.
The phrase “three score years and ten” appears in The Bible for a reason. The Biblical allusion to a lifespan was there because even then, if you made it past childhood (v dodgy admittedly), the chances of making 70 were not bad.
Yes, it’s a point often missed when simply looking at life expectancy as a whole. That said losing half your children before they reach adulthood was probably not a lot of fun…
Proper core vote strategy from the tories. Now just showering the 68 + year olds with money, whilst the young get access to, err, national service
The 68+yos don't agree with you. They'll say it is a matter of not stealing their money. An important psychological block. As is the notion of immutable rights incurred through NI payments - vide the reaction when Mr Hunt J cut NI payments.
*not my view, of course - but sometimes one has to put oneself in their position to see what plonkers the Tories are pulling*
At what point can the friends of the Conservatives stage an interdevention?
They always talk about tax avoidance, the big question is how much are they planning to raise by clamping down on it because some would be easy to get and some virtually impossible. Dan Neidle covers it today if anyone wants a longer read.
If labour mention 'tax avoidance' paying for anything the tories and their newspapers go bloody ballistic.
At what point can the friends of the Conservatives stage an interdevention?
They always talk about tax avoidance, the big question is how much are they planning to raise by clamping down on it because some would be easy to get and some virtually impossible. Dan Neidle covers it today if anyone wants a longer read.
If labour mention 'tax avoidance' paying for anything the tories and their newspapers go bloody ballistic.
Now we have the quadruple lock on pensions from Sunak . And it will be paid for by clamping down on tax avoidance . It’s amazing how much heavy lifting that’s doing ! Labour really needs to join the club and start offering out bribes from the seemingly endless cash machine that is clamping down on tax avoidance !
The difference is that Labour will be in government in 6 weeks' time.
With this insanity, the Tories have given up pretending that they have any chance of winning.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
People generally don't mind children being told what to do. They feel differently about telling adults what to do, which is what is proposed.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
"God forbid young people should be asked to do something!" Ben Wallace today. Such as have a job. Study. Work weekends to pay for your study.
Weekends - I know of a fair number of students with weekday work and very carefully chosen options...
All credit to them. As adults they are allowed to arrange their time as they see fit within the Law. Unless there's a Tory government of course.
Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot Very interesting statement and reads like Street is hinting he would prefer a job in government, rather than in opposition.
Just saw Mercer in the times radio podcast. WOW. He looks like a man who has given up ... he offers nothing buttotal exasperation. He is making excuses for why there is no message discipline, which is catastrophic for a GE campaign. His tone screams: I don't believe a word of what I am saying... I am just saying what I have to.... crazy to witness this kind of performance this early in a campaign. I am saying this as marketing academic: sunak is going to regret going 6 weeks long. He wanted to reveal labour... his own party is revealing itself. Who would get excited about this????
I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.
Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.
You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
There's no such thing as a "tide of history".
Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.
Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.
Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.
Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
Indeed. There is no such thing.
"The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.
In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.
I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.
However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.
Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
Its completely deniable.
It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.
But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
Here is my thinking.
500 years ago in every part of the world: - lives were short and brutal - starvation was a common experience - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that - women were second class citizens - disability was feared and stigmatised - education was the preserve of the top 1% - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes. - animal cruelty was ubiquitous - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent - difference was pilloried (often literally) ... I could go on.
Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.
We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
'setbacks and periods of regression'
But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
Sounds lovely in principle but the lack of medicine would not be ideal.
Especially anaesthesia.
Other than an awful lot of brandy…
Opium.
Shit dentists.
And generally rather shit if you were gay, with the risk of a trial ending with a noose or a free trip to Oz.
This deranged clown will have no impact at all on the election at all. The Tories are going to get their drubbing at the ballot box whatever shit she spouts.
The next Tory policy will be to give every pensioner the right to demand a pound of flesh and a pint of blood from anyone under 45.
It's honestly hateful what the Tories are doing to working age people in this country. They deserve to be wiped out.
Well they've also given them:
Full employment Affordable housing in much of the country A 4% reduction in national insurance University tuition fees frozen for seven years
Sure there's plenty that many working age people can be upset about but can we stop the imbecilic levels of exaggeration.
"Affordable housing" - are you frigging kidding me!?
In my part of the North West you'll struggle to find a 3 bedroom home for shy of the region of 200k to quarter of a million pounds. Which means if you want a 10% deposit you "merely" have to save up 20-25k for your deposit.
Housing is not remotely affordable anywhere, its simply somewhat less unaffordable than it is elsewhere.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Against all change? Someone should coin a word for that. Something like, Conservative.
One of the many problems with this new national service scheme is that it is deeply un-Conservative, which is why even its intended audience does not like it.
The Tory core vote strategy means their manifesto is wholly unsuitable for governing, but it may well be enough to win them 150-200 seats and have a stable base for opposition.
They know the game is up. It’s damage limitation now. As a strategy that makes some sense.
Odd because she was a big supporter of John Major and the Tories at the 1997 election. I wonder what changed.
In the clip she says that she thinks this will be one of the sea change elections where we purge the current lot and to the extent that there's no way back.
Just saw Mercer in the times radio podcast. WOW. He looks like a man who has given up ... he offers nothing buttotal exasperation. He is making excuses for why there is no message discipline, which is catastrophic for a GE campaign. His tone screams: I don't believe a word of what I am saying... I am just saying what I have to.... crazy to witness this kind of performance this early in a campaign. I am saying this as marketing academic: sunak is going to regret going 6 weeks long. He wanted to reveal labour... his own party is revealing itself. Who would get excited about this????
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Because these people are adults. Many of whom have responsibilities and aspirations that aren't best served by the government telling them what they have to do for 25 days a year - and it's not education, it's forced labour. You don't get a useful qualification (unless you're planning to join a related service - in which case you might volunteer for a voluntary scheme) at the end of it.
If for, example, you study full-time at college but need to work weekends to help pay your way at home or the rent, then it's a massive inconvenience. If you're caring for a parent, brother or sister, or your own child it is too. Or volunteer for valuable things that don't qualify or are looking to do to further your professional skills in a specific area.
It's also an insult because younger generations have been made poorer and had rights taken away by their elders, who now want to make their lives even harder because of their creepy World War 2 fetish and failure to come to terms with how feckless and selfish they have been themselves.
Seeing as you're not against forcing into work that makes their lives harder but provides an education and sense of community. How about we do National Service but for pensioners who own their own home? They can work the second jobs many young people have to to afford rent in such the inflated property market they benefited from.
The Labour Party is a Democratic Socialist Party. It says so on my membership card.
It would be fecking weird if the leader of a Democratic Socialist Party wasn't a Socialist.
Labour has never been a socialist party, whatever Starmer and the membership card may say. It’s a party of labour. The two are not the same, and the early days of the Independent Labour Party, the Social Democratic Federation, and the eventual Labour Representation Committee saw the union-dominated “party of labour” argument win the day.
There are some really interesting counterfactuals about what could have happened if Hyndman, Grayson, Blatchford and Morris had been the ones to set the course of Britain’s left wing parties rather than Hardie and Macdonald.
Comments
The most recent budget froze thresholds until April 2028 - there's no money available to increase them before then.
Tory MPs were faced with a party gutted of talent at the time of Boris’ downfall; but they should never have allowed second-rate politicians like Truss and Sunak to rise to the top in the leadership stakes. Even Penny M, who I personally have a lot of time for, was too inexperienced to be in the top 3 - she is a future talent who should learn the ropes in a LOTO role, not to be parachuted into Number 10 in the middle of a parliament.
In hindsight the party would have been much better putting a figure like Gove or Hunt in charge, no matter the fact the membership weren’t fans. No those figures may not have been to the Party’s ideological tastes, but they are substantial figures with political nous and they could at least have kept the ship steady until the GE. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Have the Conservatives gifted Labour a highly effective voter registration campaign?
https://x.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1795151829786910901
It would be fecking weird if the leader of a Democratic Socialist Party wasn't a Socialist.
Morgan McSweeney, Labour campaign manager for anyone who didn’t know, seems to be very on the ball so far.
Main reason the first Jesuit missionaries considered it an inferior civilisation despite being obviously more advanced than Europe in almost every way conceivable.
It's going to be really interesting to see how The Sun finesses it. They (and Murdoch) may not like Starmer, but they hate losers even more.
Brace, brace, brace...
There you go. Quadruple lock. Never in electoral history has a core vote strategy been more core vote.
TELEGRAPH: PM: State pensions will never be taxed #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://x.com/hendopolis/status/1795197625055990114
Good. It is high time my chimney was thoroughly swept.
Why should someone working have to pay tax on an income lower than a pension?
They already are you wally!
😂😂😂
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1795198204654330283
At what point can the friends of the Conservatives stage an interdevention?
https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1795183628718162017
Oh, hang on... they'd be doing this only for pensioners?!
Fucking hell. This is kamikaze stuff. Why would anyone under 68 even remotely consider voting for them?
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
Not an aspiration.
Otherwise, it is of course taxable.
I suppose it's because DWP never tax it at source anyway and he CBA to do something about that ...
And here it is: “triple lock plus” – an increase to the tax-free allowance on income tax, but *only for pensioners*.
This adds a lot of complexity to the tax system and is clearly meant to appease core Tory voters (🧵)
It is quite tricky for the Tories as it runs directly counter to the last two high-profile tax cuts the party made in government – cutting national insurance doesn’t benefit pensioners.
This is something of a reversal of that philosophy of targeting tax cuts at workers.
It’s also poorly targeted: a millionaire pensioner will benefit from this just as much as one in poverty.
It’s bad spending to reduce poverty, too: pensioners have lower poverty levels than families with children and even just working age adults.
So it’s a complicated policy that’s hard to rationalise, will make the tax system more complex, isn’t in line with the government’s big pre-election tax cuts, and which will benefit ultra-rich retirees.
Are the Tories giving up on voters under 67 entirely?
early life
Life before PB
Early controversies on PB
Rehabilitation
Life after PB
Views on Lis Truzz
Life after PB ???
Ben Wallace today.
Such as have a job. Study. Work weekends to pay for your study.
(This is a hilarious example of the problem with being an incumbent government. The only reason this is an issue is because some nitwit is freezing the income tax threshold for the best part of a decade. And if the Prime Minister ever finds who that nitwit is, by golly he's in trouble.)
https://www.cityam.com/how-to-close-the-tax-gap/
It's honestly hateful what the Tories are doing to working age people in this country. They deserve to be wiped out.
Problem is if the public don't trust you what might be a dream promise just snaps them awake in shock and disbelief.
“So, what’s on the schedule for today lads?”
“Well, in the morning we’re going to be saying that anyone over the age of 61 has trouble staying awake, and then at half past ten at night we’re gonna do the big announcement on pensions.”
“Brilliant.”
*not my view, of course - but sometimes one has to put oneself in their position to see what plonkers the Tories are pulling*
https://x.com/politicsjoe_uk/status/1795115541767598284
With this insanity, the Tories have given up pretending that they have any chance of winning.
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
16m
The state pension counts towards your taxable income
As adults they are allowed to arrange their time as they see fit within the Law.
Unless there's a Tory government of course.
Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
Very interesting statement and reads like Street is hinting he would prefer a job in government, rather than in opposition.
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1795182842978201809
The Tories.
Full employment
Affordable housing in much of the country
A 4% reduction in national insurance
University tuition fees frozen for seven years
Sure there's plenty that many working age people can be upset about but can we stop the imbecilic levels of exaggeration.
https://youtu.be/NkC2iggYwq4?si=OtkZQZymnPa2U9cO
Shit dentists.
And generally rather shit if you were gay, with the risk of a trial ending with a noose or a free trip to Oz.
In my part of the North West you'll struggle to find a 3 bedroom home for shy of the region of 200k to quarter of a million pounds. Which means if you want a 10% deposit you "merely" have to save up 20-25k for your deposit.
Housing is not remotely affordable anywhere, its simply somewhat less unaffordable than it is elsewhere.
One of the many problems with this new national service scheme is that it is deeply un-Conservative, which is why even its intended audience does not like it.
Afforable housing? Maybe in the wilds of the Northern coalfields.
And NI used to be 11% back in 2009 IIRC.
It's almost a surprise that he didn't stand up and show us all that he was only clothed from the waist up...
The highest of 2.5%, inflation, average earnings growth or the Conservative vote share in the next General Election.
Close, but no cigar.
If for, example, you study full-time at college but need to work weekends to help pay your way at home or the rent, then it's a massive inconvenience. If you're caring for a parent, brother or sister, or your own child it is too. Or volunteer for valuable things that don't qualify or are looking to do to further your professional skills in a specific area.
It's also an insult because younger generations have been made poorer and had rights taken away by their elders, who now want to make their lives even harder because of their creepy World War 2 fetish and failure to come to terms with how feckless and selfish they have been themselves.
Seeing as you're not against forcing into work that makes their lives harder but provides an education and sense of community. How about we do National Service but for pensioners who own their own home? They can work the second jobs many young people have to to afford rent in such the inflated property market they benefited from.
Oh. Thought not.
There are some really interesting counterfactuals about what could have happened if Hyndman, Grayson, Blatchford and Morris had been the ones to set the course of Britain’s left wing parties rather than Hardie and Macdonald.
Which might work if it wasn’t wholly evident from the last 8 years that the Tories haven’t had one either.
If this is the best they can do, then the wipeout may yet be on.