A news report from an academic source yesterday made the claim that we have 5 years to something something about CO2 to avert catastrophe. I think the story vanished fairly fast.
Two questions arise from this regularly occurring sort of story.
Does anyone keep a record of for how long and how many times we have been told we have X (small number) of years to do Y (massive decrease/elimination) about CO2 to avert catastrophe. (I think this began in the 1990s)
At what point does everyone publicly agree that this isn't going to happen as 2023 was a record year for CO2 output and it isn't going to change much within X (small number) years and even when it does CO2 continues to accumulate, even if a bit slower.
The thing is that the "we have x time to do something" statement doesn't mean "we will see all the negative effects by x year" - it just means that we can't reverse the worst impacts after that point. Once the Gulf Stream stops - we don't know if we can restart it. Once the ice caps melt, we don't have the means to rebuild them. Once you chop down ancient forest and jungle, planting new saplings does not do the same job. The same for CO2. We are buggered - I keep seeing the sea temperature graphs and my heart pangs with pain for the babes being born into a world that is going to collapse around them.
@hzeffman Breaking: The Conservatives accepted £5 million from the controversial donor Frank Hester's company in January, new Electoral Commission figures show.
It follows £10 million of donations last year
Perhaps, but Labours going to take £2000 from every voter.
Probably more.
Quite possible, given the precedent our current government has just set.
The average household is paying £3,500 more in tax now than in 2019. The biggest tax raising parliament in UK history.
And I don’t blame the Tories for doing this. They probably should have raised more. Our public infrastructure, services and local government are on their knees after years of no investment.
Or were raising record taxes but spending it on the wrong things.
What would CoE Alanbrooke have stopped spending money on?
Woke diversity consultants in the NHS?
I answered this yesterday - some examples
Major cutback on Quangos theres £82billion to go at Restructure the BoE debt No new IT projects for the duration of parliament - they always overrun Reform MoD procurement for more value for money Restore public sector productivity instead of losing 2% a year
The government spends £1200 billion a year. If youre saying you couldnt find efficiencies in that sum then stay away from management.
If you dont actively go looking for savings you wont find them.
And just to finish off some of the savings need to be put back in to spending on issues like infrastructure which longer term create further savings through productivity
No new IT projects but productivity improvements - how the f*** does that work....
Thanks for confirming in 1 post my believe that you are absolutely f***ing clueless..
IT projects need to be small and manageable, driven bottom-up to a standardised framework - rather than driven top-down by the centre, led by some senior mandarin looking for his gong.
Otherwise we end up with the last NHS IT project failure, or whatever the **** happened at the Post Office.
@ConnorGillies Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross has called an emergency press conference to deliver an ‘announcement’ regarding the general election.
Perhaps the positive predictions for Scottish Conservatives need to be revisited.
Indeed rumours that Mr Ross is inserting himself into the seat from which David Duguid was vacated yesterday. If so the Scottish Tories should be comprehensively pulverised.
What are the dynamics of seats that are straight fights between the Conservatives and SNP, where both parties are losing votes to Labour who aren't in contention?
Scottish Conservative leader @Douglas4Moray will stand in Aberdeenshire North and East Moray
Good grief. Is he giving up his position as Scottish leader and seat at Holyrood then?
He's been MP for Moray for the last 7 years without any detriment to his SCon leadership and seat at Holyrood (or football refereeing for that matter), so..
Your regular reminder that Douglas Ross, when asked what he would do if PM for a day "with no consequences", could think of nothing better to do than harass a persecuted minority group.
I have been trying to book a GP appointment for my son for the last 45 mins. Online system has stopped taking appointments and the phone just keeps on ringing. This is what folks face everyday thanks to the Tories.
The usual right-wing fruit loops on here will continue to pretend there is nothing wrong and still put the x against the Conservatives. I actually pity them as they obviously need some kind of help. At least one of this group, @Leon has called a spade a spade and wants the Tories destroyed. His reasoning is wrong, immigration is not the main issue, it’s the fact that the Tories have completely and utterly Ratnered this country over the last 14 years.
Hopefully they will end up with less 15 seats but my betting position is 100-150 seats.
Streetings plan for the Reform of the NHS has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and involves handing more NHS money to profits of private sector.
Such as his donors.
I look forward to you commenting on the improvements in this area 1 year in.
This is the conundrum of FPTP and the UK. The Conservative party deserves to be taken out behind the bike shed and be put down - that seems to be clear to even many of its voters. The Labour party is not offering much better, but the duopoly reigns and they are the "only alternative". My concern is come 2029 the far right will have made a big come back in the wake of Labour failures to improve the lives of people on a material level. Labour giving the franchise to 16yos may hold this off, but the young are also disillusioned with politics and are willing to turn to a far right source if it means shaking things up (see Trump's better ratings amongst younger voters than typical GOP polling). Long term Labour would be better off bringing in PR and accepting a role as the likeliest biggest player in a more continental style of government where they would work with Greens and LDs, shifting the country towards a more social democratic model. They won't, because they're neoliberalists to the core, but they should.
At the moment the biggest shift on the continent with PR is to far right populism not social democracy. Indeed Meloni, Wilders and the Sweden Democrats are all in government in nations with PR.
New Zealand and Israel also have PR and right of centre governments. Spain and Germany have centre left governments with PR but in both nations the centre right lead the polls.
Looking back, I think definitive moment of Sunak's premiership might have been abstention on Johnson privileges committee vote - the choice not to choose; the inability to distinguish between tactical discretion and raw cowardice.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
Your regular reminder that Douglas Ross, when asked what he would do if PM for a day "with no consequences", could think of nothing better to do than harass a persecuted minority group.
Tbf he's not doing much for the morale of that persecuted minority group, the SCons.
Yebbut they're not camped beside the road in Moray.
1,014 GB adults interviewed by phone Fieldwork dates 31st May - 4th June
Fairly old poll though. Be good to see some with fieldwork 5-6 June, post debate and Faragasm.
One interesting undercard stat (and yep, newer data would be noice), lab are 44 22 on all naming a party, they had been slightly lower in lead on that metric before GE called. A tentative hint that nothing has changed except some of that DK Tory vote has hardened. Which youd expect tbf.
Scottish Conservative leader @Douglas4Moray will stand in Aberdeenshire North and East Moray
Good grief. Is he giving up his position as Scottish leader and seat at Holyrood then?
He wants to become party leader at Westminster?
Well, that's not going to happen. He may become Shadow Scottish Secretary. Frankly, he's got a much bigger job at the moment.
Ross knows that the Tories will not be the second party in Holyrood after the next election. His profile there will be diminished. Perhaps he does see his future in a big role at Westminster?
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
As with any tax on “wealth”, those with actual wealth plan their lives around avoiding it, so it mostly gets paid by the middle classes who happen to have got lucky on the property market.
I have been trying to book a GP appointment for my son for the last 45 mins. Online system has stopped taking appointments and the phone just keeps on ringing. This is what folks face everyday thanks to the Tories.
The usual right-wing fruit loops on here will continue to pretend there is nothing wrong and still put the x against the Conservatives. I actually pity them as they obviously need some kind of help. At least one of this group, @Leon has called a spade a spade and wants the Tories destroyed. His reasoning is wrong, immigration is not the main issue, it’s the fact that the Tories have completely and utterly Ratnered this country over the last 14 years.
Hopefully they will end up with less 15 seats but my betting position is 100-150 seats.
Streetings plan for the Reform of the NHS has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and involves handing more NHS money to profits of private sector.
Such as his donors.
I look forward to you commenting on the improvements in this area 1 year in.
This is the conundrum of FPTP and the UK. The Conservative party deserves to be taken out behind the bike shed and be put down - that seems to be clear to even many of its voters. The Labour party is not offering much better, but the duopoly reigns and they are the "only alternative". My concern is come 2029 the far right will have made a big come back in the wake of Labour failures to improve the lives of people on a material level. Labour giving the franchise to 16yos may hold this off, but the young are also disillusioned with politics and are willing to turn to a far right source if it means shaking things up (see Trump's better ratings amongst younger voters than typical GOP polling). Long term Labour would be better off bringing in PR and accepting a role as the likeliest biggest player in a more continental style of government where they would work with Greens and LDs, shifting the country towards a more social democratic model. They won't, because they're neoliberalists to the core, but they should.
At the moment the biggest shift on the continent with PR is to far right populism not social democracy. Indeed Meloni, Wilders and the Sweden Democrats are all in government in nations with PR.
New Zealand and Israel also have PR and right of centre governments. Spain and Germany have centre left governments with PR but in both nations the centre right lead the polls.
My son in from Vancouver tells me the conservatives will win and Trudeau will be out in Canada's next election
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
@hzeffman Breaking: The Conservatives accepted £5 million from the controversial donor Frank Hester's company in January, new Electoral Commission figures show.
It follows £10 million of donations last year
Perhaps, but Labours going to take £2000 from every voter.
Probably more.
Quite possible, given the precedent our current government has just set.
The average household is paying £3,500 more in tax now than in 2019. The biggest tax raising parliament in UK history.
And I don’t blame the Tories for doing this. They probably should have raised more. Our public infrastructure, services and local government are on their knees after years of no investment.
Or were raising record taxes but spending it on the wrong things.
What would CoE Alanbrooke have stopped spending money on?
Woke diversity consultants in the NHS?
I answered this yesterday - some examples
Major cutback on Quangos theres £82billion to go at Restructure the BoE debt No new IT projects for the duration of parliament - they always overrun Reform MoD procurement for more value for money Restore public sector productivity instead of losing 2% a year
The government spends £1200 billion a year. If youre saying you couldnt find efficiencies in that sum then stay away from management.
If you dont actively go looking for savings you wont find them.
And just to finish off some of the savings need to be put back in to spending on issues like infrastructure which longer term create further savings through productivity
No new IT projects but productivity improvements - how the f*** does that work....
Thanks for confirming in 1 post my believe that you are absolutely f***ing clueless..
Also - no new IT projects for 5 years? Really? What do you propose to do in 5 years' time when much of government IT is out of hardware and software support and has to be switched off? (And much of it is already close to it now, due the the impact of 10 years' worth of 'efficiency savings').
I look forward to the attempts to do everything on paper! Without printing... Bring back the typing pools!
Scottish Conservative leader @Douglas4Moray will stand in Aberdeenshire North and East Moray
Good grief. Is he giving up his position as Scottish leader and seat at Holyrood then?
He wants to become party leader at Westminster?
Well, that's not going to happen. He may become Shadow Scottish Secretary. Frankly, he's got a much bigger job at the moment.
Ross knows that the Tories will not be the second party in Holyrood after the next election. His profile there will be diminished. Perhaps he does see his future in a big role at Westminster?
Remarskable lack of confidence in his incumbency bonus in Moray. Perhaps Mr Gove made a mistake in not trying to stand for Peterborough and Fraserhead?
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
Raising the Inheritance tax threshold to £2 million though should get the Tories back closer to 30%.
It will also save some bluewall seats from going LD, many of which will have lots of £1 million+ homes.
Plus Kensington and Bayswater, Chelsea and Fulham and Cities of London and Westminster are all marginal seats now where the average house price is well over £1 million. Even homes over the £325k threshold would still welcome that threshold rising to £2 million as that also means they could pass on other assets as well as the family home to their children inheritance tax free
@hzeffman Breaking: The Conservatives accepted £5 million from the controversial donor Frank Hester's company in January, new Electoral Commission figures show.
It follows £10 million of donations last year
Perhaps, but Labours going to take £2000 from every voter.
Probably more.
Quite possible, given the precedent our current government has just set.
The average household is paying £3,500 more in tax now than in 2019. The biggest tax raising parliament in UK history.
And I don’t blame the Tories for doing this. They probably should have raised more. Our public infrastructure, services and local government are on their knees after years of no investment.
That's down to Covid and the interest rate spikes to fight inflation. Don't forget that.
Look at the forecasts for budget balance beforehand, in 2019.
The energy cap was another major contributor. Martin Lewis is truly an enemy of the people.
But the current fiscal targets are a joke promising to be good one day. The reputation of the Tories for being sound on finance has taken a hell of a dunt in this Parliament and will take quite some time to recover.
You say the energy price cap was bad - but the alternative would have been soaring bills anyway, so people would have been worse off either way. The alternative to a cap was just letting the worst off default on their bills, more energy companies going bust and people having their electricity turned off?
The reason that this is clearly a Tory issue is that they had Treasury brain - so the benefits of spending if too intangible are just ignored. Infrastructure spending would increase economic growth, productivity, general health, etc etc. which would grow the economy. All Treasury sees is spending. This mindset needs to end.
Like far too much of our expenditure the energy cap was badly directed by being universal. Any government support should have been focused on those in need. The majority should just have grinned and bore it. Instead tens of billions were, once again, chucked on the credit card for our benighted children to pay.
I agree with @Alanbrooke that there must be room for increases in productivity and savings, especially after such a long period of rapid growth in spending, but I also think we need to be much more radical about how we cut current spending, not least to allow us to increase capital spending on infrastructure etc as you point out.
The Universal state pension is, to me, an obvious target. Anyone receiving other income of more than double average earnings, whether because they are still working or because of private or state pensions, should not be receiving it.
We need to make people pay for their care in old age rather than leave hundreds of thousands as inheritance after the State has picked up the tab.
Without fundamental changes like this there is no capacity for the likes of HS2 and therefore few opportunities to encourage future growth.
There's was nothing wrong with the universal help as long as it is recouped via taxes.
Protecting the economy from the full force of an energy hit made sense.
IMO the government did a pretty good job of protecting the economy, helping people generally, helping the vulnerable more and also encouraging energy efficiency.
The one excess spending was to give the oldies a second year of increased WFA - it will be interesting to see if Starmer and Reeves give them a third.
What the government has failed to do is explain how much help it gave people at the time and that taxes would have to rise to pay for it.
I have been trying to book a GP appointment for my son for the last 45 mins. Online system has stopped taking appointments and the phone just keeps on ringing. This is what folks face everyday thanks to the Tories.
The usual right-wing fruit loops on here will continue to pretend there is nothing wrong and still put the x against the Conservatives. I actually pity them as they obviously need some kind of help. At least one of this group, @Leon has called a spade a spade and wants the Tories destroyed. His reasoning is wrong, immigration is not the main issue, it’s the fact that the Tories have completely and utterly Ratnered this country over the last 14 years.
Hopefully they will end up with less 15 seats but my betting position is 100-150 seats.
Streetings plan for the Reform of the NHS has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and involves handing more NHS money to profits of private sector.
Such as his donors.
I look forward to you commenting on the improvements in this area 1 year in.
This is the conundrum of FPTP and the UK. The Conservative party deserves to be taken out behind the bike shed and be put down - that seems to be clear to even many of its voters. The Labour party is not offering much better, but the duopoly reigns and they are the "only alternative". My concern is come 2029 the far right will have made a big come back in the wake of Labour failures to improve the lives of people on a material level. Labour giving the franchise to 16yos may hold this off, but the young are also disillusioned with politics and are willing to turn to a far right source if it means shaking things up (see Trump's better ratings amongst younger voters than typical GOP polling). Long term Labour would be better off bringing in PR and accepting a role as the likeliest biggest player in a more continental style of government where they would work with Greens and LDs, shifting the country towards a more social democratic model. They won't, because they're neoliberalists to the core, but they should.
At the moment the biggest shift on the continent with PR is to far right populism not social democracy. Indeed Meloni, Wilders and the Sweden Democrats are all in government in nations with PR.
New Zealand and Israel also have PR and right of centre governments. Spain and Germany have centre left governments with PR but in both nations the centre right lead the polls.
My son in from Vancouver tells me the conservatives will win and Trudeau will be out in Canada's next election
Rather than a left-right axis, it’s really more of an incumbency axis. The last four years have been terrible economically, across most of the world, and incumbents everywhere are getting kicked out by their electorates.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
As with any tax on “wealth”, those with actual wealth plan their lives around avoiding it, so it mostly gets paid by the middle classes who happen to have got lucky on the property market.
In my days in the tax biz, Sandy, it was often referred to as 'the voluntary tax', although as I indicated in an earlier post, not everyone objects to volunteering.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
That would be awesome - for Monaco, New York, Dubai, Singapore….
You don’t think people with £10m in non-property assets wouldn’t keep them in an offshore trust?
Because when you constantly redefine language to change the meaning of commonly-understood words, people quickly stop paying attention.
Agree. Without the whole picture about the household and household income, and what definition of poverty is being used the subject is hopelessly confused.
The BBC is especially bad at this, finding case studies which fit the picture they want to paint. What they never manage to find and analyse is a few households where they are poor because they are useless wasters and their children are disadvantaged because their parents/parent/step parent(s) are idiots.
I have been trying to book a GP appointment for my son for the last 45 mins. Online system has stopped taking appointments and the phone just keeps on ringing. This is what folks face everyday thanks to the Tories.
The usual right-wing fruit loops on here will continue to pretend there is nothing wrong and still put the x against the Conservatives. I actually pity them as they obviously need some kind of help. At least one of this group, @Leon has called a spade a spade and wants the Tories destroyed. His reasoning is wrong, immigration is not the main issue, it’s the fact that the Tories have completely and utterly Ratnered this country over the last 14 years.
Hopefully they will end up with less 15 seats but my betting position is 100-150 seats.
Streetings plan for the Reform of the NHS has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and involves handing more NHS money to profits of private sector.
Such as his donors.
I look forward to you commenting on the improvements in this area 1 year in.
This is the conundrum of FPTP and the UK. The Conservative party deserves to be taken out behind the bike shed and be put down - that seems to be clear to even many of its voters. The Labour party is not offering much better, but the duopoly reigns and they are the "only alternative". My concern is come 2029 the far right will have made a big come back in the wake of Labour failures to improve the lives of people on a material level. Labour giving the franchise to 16yos may hold this off, but the young are also disillusioned with politics and are willing to turn to a far right source if it means shaking things up (see Trump's better ratings amongst younger voters than typical GOP polling). Long term Labour would be better off bringing in PR and accepting a role as the likeliest biggest player in a more continental style of government where they would work with Greens and LDs, shifting the country towards a more social democratic model. They won't, because they're neoliberalists to the core, but they should.
At the moment the biggest shift on the continent with PR is to far right populism not social democracy. Indeed Meloni, Wilders and the Sweden Democrats are all in government in nations with PR.
New Zealand and Israel also have PR and right of centre governments. Spain and Germany have centre left governments with PR but in both nations the centre right lead the polls.
My son in from Vancouver tells me the conservatives will win and Trudeau will be out in Canada's next election
Likely but Trudeau has been in power for 9 years ie longer than 2 term US Presidents and most UK PMs so that is more natural swing of the pendulum
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
Why the *national* coffer? You want those assets to accumulate in one of the richest nations on earth rather than give them to a worldwide fund for global equality?
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
Why the *national* coffer? You want those assets to accumulate in one of the richest nations on earth rather than give them to a worldwide fund for global equality?
Equality is such a 2010s word. It’s all about equity now.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
That would be awesome - for Monaco, New York, Dubai, Singapore….
You don’t think people with £10m in non-property assets wouldn’t keep them in an offshore trust?
The British State can give itself the powers to take those assets. And tell people who make offshore accounts to tax dodge that they aren't welcome to do business in the UK. We don't need to pander to the extremely wealthy - we've had income and inheritance tax rates on the richest in society much higher than we do now, and they were still able to live lives of luxury and debauchery. We just also provided public services to the masses at the same time.
A lot of people focusing on what Labour are saying they will do.
Surely we all think that a 450+ seat Labour Party would quickly use its majority to do some easy wins, even if it makes it less popular?
You may as well go after rich pensioners and the like because you are not going to suffer electorally for it AND you won’t risk a breakaway faction of Labour MPs, unlike some other moves might.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
Why the *national* coffer? You want those assets to accumulate in one of the richest nations on earth rather than give them to a worldwide fund for global equality?
I mean, I would also increase international aid, so they would also fund global equality.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
That would be awesome - for Monaco, New York, Dubai, Singapore….
You don’t think people with £10m in non-property assets wouldn’t keep them in an offshore trust?
The British State can give itself the powers to take those assets. And tell people who make offshore accounts to tax dodge that they aren't welcome to do business in the UK. We don't need to pander to the extremely wealthy - we've had income and inheritance tax rates on the richest in society much higher than we do now, and they were still able to live lives of luxury and debauchery. We just also provided public services to the masses at the same time.
The British state can give itself the power to do lots of things. Doesn't mean it can actually achieve it!
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
Why the *national* coffer? You want those assets to accumulate in one of the richest nations on earth rather than give them to a worldwide fund for global equality?
I mean, I would also increase international aid, so they would also fund global equality.
Only increase it? Why not ringfence all inheritence tax to go to developing countries?
I note the collective thinking about where extra tax revenue might (needs to?) come from.
As an aside I have recently been upgrading my wardrobe and have been persuaded to raise my game from buying cheap T-shirts from the supermarket or multi-buys from M&S if I'm feeling extravagant.
I find to my astonishment that it is possible to buy a plain T-shirt for £100! Who are these people that do this? I would expect to get 5 or 6 for that amount, minimum. Anyway, those are the people who can afford to find a bit more but how do you identify them?
And I'm sorry in advance to Messrs Hilfiger, Boss et al if your sales slump. Or you could try sensible pricing.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
That would be awesome - for Monaco, New York, Dubai, Singapore….
You don’t think people with £10m in non-property assets wouldn’t keep them in an offshore trust?
The British State can give itself the powers to take those assets. And tell people who make offshore accounts to tax dodge that they aren't welcome to do business in the UK. We don't need to pander to the extremely wealthy - we've had income and inheritance tax rates on the richest in society much higher than we do now, and they were still able to live lives of luxury and debauchery. We just also provided public services to the masses at the same time.
Of course the British State can do that.
People subject to such taxes can also chose to take their business elsewhere.
Are LD new favourites in Aberdeenshire North and Moray East?
No but @RochdalePioneers now has a chance that didn't exist 2 days ago...
We should have a PB outing. Every poster, of every political persuasion, goes up to Aberdeenshire for the day to campaign for @RochdalePioneers. Otherwise we won't have a PB MP in the next parliament and that would never do.
That said I just looked at the train fare and it's £270 return, so maybe not.
A lot of people focusing on what Labour are saying they will do.
Surely we all think that a 450+ seat Labour Party would quickly use its majority to do some easy wins, even if it makes it less popular?
You may as well go after rich pensioners and the like because you are not going to suffer electorally for it AND you won’t risk a breakaway faction of Labour MPs, unlike some other moves might.
Why just rich pensioners rather than the rich including multi millionaire footballers and celebrities
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
That would be awesome - for Monaco, New York, Dubai, Singapore….
You don’t think people with £10m in non-property assets wouldn’t keep them in an offshore trust?
The British State can give itself the powers to take those assets. And tell people who make offshore accounts to tax dodge that they aren't welcome to do business in the UK. We don't need to pander to the extremely wealthy - we've had income and inheritance tax rates on the richest in society much higher than we do now, and they were still able to live lives of luxury and debauchery. We just also provided public services to the masses at the same time.
The British state can give itself the power to do lots of things. Doesn't mean it can actually achieve it!
The idea that a modern state can do all the things it does and could not enforce taxes on the wealthy is either fantasy or an admission that we have built and want to perpetuate a world where the extremely wealthy can just do whatever they want. I personally think it is a fantasy - of course the British state could use the powers at its disposal to enforce tax laws it passes. And if I'm wrong, then I want to fight with all my might against a world where the extremely wealthy can treat the world as their play things.
1,014 GB adults interviewed by phone Fieldwork dates 31st May - 4th June
Now to me, this feels plausible.
Plausible indeed, and not dissimilar to Lord Ashcroft's punt, but already out of date. We need a solid week of post-Farage polls before we recalibrate our plausibility spectrum.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
That would be awesome - for Monaco, New York, Dubai, Singapore….
You don’t think people with £10m in non-property assets wouldn’t keep them in an offshore trust?
Looking at real tax rates for multi millionaires is quite interesting. You get about a quarter paying sub 10% and a quarter paying what they are supposed to (40%) with half in between. So there is wide variation in how they respond, not all of them aggressively minimise tax but a lot do, and some do very little at all.
1,014 GB adults interviewed by phone Fieldwork dates 31st May - 4th June
Now to me, this feels plausible.
Plausible indeed, and not dissimilar to Lord Ashcroft's punt, but already out of date. We need a solid week of post-Farage polls before we recalibrate our plausibility spectrum.
Certainly the 7 way debate on Friday with Mordaunt v Rayner v Farage v the rest will be interesting and better than watching England play in a friendly
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
As with any tax on “wealth”, those with actual wealth plan their lives around avoiding it, so it mostly gets paid by the middle classes who happen to have got lucky on the property market.
In my days in the tax biz, Sandy, it was often referred to as 'the voluntary tax', although as I indicated in an earlier post, not everyone objects to volunteering.
It would actually be interesting to see the numbers on a blanket 10% inheritance tax. Low enough that the really rich wouldn’t care too much, but with the much broader scope taking in a lot more assets.
The losers would be the accountants, lawyers, and ‘advisors’, who can go and do something more productive with their lives.
"Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment
We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives"
"Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party."
On seats though even if Reform are level pegging with the Tories or even slightly ahead of the Tories on voteshare, the Tories still win significantly more seats than Reform, Labour and the LDs however win even more seats with a split right.
Anyway, I suspect his return to leadership was peak Farage in the polls. He will decline as the Starmer v Sunak debates from which he is excluded continue and the Conservatives probably win back a few voters from Reform and the LDs if as is likely the Tory manifesto promises a big IHT cut
I don't think IHT is as unpopular as conservatives think it is. One, because most people are already safe from it because who has half a million worth of assets to gift the next generation that they aren't already having to dip into to make ends meet, and two, because it is the very definition of unearned wealth. Income tax bands you can at least go "I work hard for my money, why should it be taxed so high?", with inheritance it's just a case of rich people passing on their money to their kids so they stay rich.
I will probably have to pay some inheritance tax at some point when my grandparents pass away - they are splitting their only asset (their house) between 7 grandkids and my aunt. The house is only worth the ridiculous amount it is because it is within the M25 and the housing market is stupid. If we have to pay some tax - so be it. Again, I'd rather a functioning society than a bit more change in my pocket. The only people who really gripe about it are those who are already wedded to the "no such thing as society" mentality - the extremely wealthy who are all "I've got mine, Jack". If anything I think lots of people would be fine with inheritance tax increasing, especially on estates over £5 or £10 million.
IHT all depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it is paid in significant amounts only by the unlucky or the badly advised. Because for most people the threshold is £1 million the issue does not arise. Those with very serious assets have a large industry of lawyers and accountants to turn to. (They would be the principal victims of abolition of IHT. Lincoln's Inn would never be the same again). The law allows massive exemptions and (lawful) planning and avoidances.
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I don't disagree - I think IHT threshold could be lowered and fewer loopholes could exist. But I do think once you get to silly wealth levels, big tax brackets are fine. If we want to stop the accumulation of wealth in a few people who do not have to work or live in the real world, the only way to do that is to tackle inherited wealth. Estates over £10 million, for example, should see like 75%+ taxes. Yes, you want to leave something good behind for your kids etc., but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that means you can leave them tens of millions of pounds. They can be pretty comfortable with a few million and the rest going back into the national coffer.
That would be awesome - for Monaco, New York, Dubai, Singapore….
You don’t think people with £10m in non-property assets wouldn’t keep them in an offshore trust?
The British State can give itself the powers to take those assets. And tell people who make offshore accounts to tax dodge that they aren't welcome to do business in the UK. We don't need to pander to the extremely wealthy - we've had income and inheritance tax rates on the richest in society much higher than we do now, and they were still able to live lives of luxury and debauchery. We just also provided public services to the masses at the same time.
The British state can give itself the power to do lots of things. Doesn't mean it can actually achieve it!
The idea that a modern state can do all the things it does and could not enforce taxes on the wealthy is either fantasy or an admission that we have built and want to perpetuate a world where the extremely wealthy can just do whatever they want. I personally think it is a fantasy - of course the British state could use the powers at its disposal to enforce tax laws it passes. And if I'm wrong, then I want to fight with all my might against a world where the extremely wealthy can treat the world as their play things.
You want to entrench the privilege of the richest countries. You are literally calling for us to go into weaker countries and steal their assets because you think that our 'nation' has some claim on them.
'No Prime Minister or government has started an election campaign with worse satisfaction ratings since Ipsos started measuring public opinion just before Margaret Thatcher’s first election victory,' says @GideonSkinner, politics head @IpsosUK
* Labour has a 20-point lead over the Conservatives, on 43 per cent, compared to the Tories on 23 per cent, Green Party and Reform UK both on nine per cent, and Liberal Democrats eight per cent.
* Sir Keir maintains his clear lead over Mr Sunak as the “most capable Prime Minister” by 46 per cent to 22 per cent, compared to 44 per cent to 22 per cent last month.
* But nearly half of adults, 49 per cent still say they do not know what the Labour leader stands for, with only 32 per cent disagreeing, both figures little changed since February. The respective figures for Mr Sunak are 41 per cent, down five points, and 38 per cent, similar to February.
I note the collective thinking about where extra tax revenue might (needs to?) come from.
As an aside I have recently been upgrading my wardrobe and have been persuaded to raise my game from buying cheap T-shirts from the supermarket or multi-buys from M&S if I'm feeling extravagant.
I find to my astonishment that it is possible to buy a plain T-shirt for £100! Who are these people that do this? I would expect to get 5 or 6 for that amount, minimum. Anyway, those are the people who can afford to find a bit more but how do you identify them?
And I'm sorry in advance to Messrs Hilfiger, Boss et al if your sales slump. Or you could try sensible pricing.
It must be glorious to have the job of trying to create and market new Veblen goods. Can we market a £5 tee shirt at £500; can we market a coffee mug for £400; a beer for £40 a pint. Profit wise it's a perpetual motion machine. Nice work if you can get it.
@hzeffman Breaking: The Conservatives accepted £5 million from the controversial donor Frank Hester's company in January, new Electoral Commission figures show.
It follows £10 million of donations last year
Perhaps, but Labours going to take £2000 from every voter.
Probably more.
Quite possible, given the precedent our current government has just set.
The average household is paying £3,500 more in tax now than in 2019. The biggest tax raising parliament in UK history.
And I don’t blame the Tories for doing this. They probably should have raised more. Our public infrastructure, services and local government are on their knees after years of no investment.
Or were raising record taxes but spending it on the wrong things.
What would CoE Alanbrooke have stopped spending money on?
Woke diversity consultants in the NHS?
I answered this yesterday - some examples
Major cutback on Quangos theres £82billion to go at Restructure the BoE debt No new IT projects for the duration of parliament - they always overrun Reform MoD procurement for more value for money Restore public sector productivity instead of losing 2% a year
The government spends £1200 billion a year. If youre saying you couldnt find efficiencies in that sum then stay away from management.
If you dont actively go looking for savings you wont find them.
And just to finish off some of the savings need to be put back in to spending on issues like infrastructure which longer term create further savings through productivity
Total airy-fairy nonsense. With the exception of 'No new IT projects' those are all on a par with Sunak's 'cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion'. Taking Quangos for example, you need to list all the quangos that are going to be cut, how much each will save, and what, if any, downsides there are.
Sorry just off a conf call.
There are over 750 quangos and yes you have to list the ones you want to ditch. Nobody in government wants to kill them off so they dont look. But lets kick off with OBR, The country functioned without it, it's an Osborne wheeze, it will stop Reeves doing anything and it duplicates other government forecasters. I'd love to tell you how much that saves but it doesnt publish figures.
And as I if you dont start looking it isnt just going to fall in to your lap.
Anyway Im off for liquid lunch in Brum so have a nice morning.
* Labour has a 20-point lead over the Conservatives, on 43 per cent, compared to the Tories on 23 per cent, Green Party and Reform UK both on nine per cent, and Liberal Democrats eight per cent.
* Sir Keir maintains his clear lead over Mr Sunak as the “most capable Prime Minister” by 46 per cent to 22 per cent, compared to 44 per cent to 22 per cent last month.
* But nearly half of adults, 49 per cent still say they do not know what the Labour leader stands for, with only 32 per cent disagreeing, both figures little changed since February. The respective figures for Mr Sunak are 41 per cent, down five points, and 38 per cent, similar to February.
I note the collective thinking about where extra tax revenue might (needs to?) come from.
As an aside I have recently been upgrading my wardrobe and have been persuaded to raise my game from buying cheap T-shirts from the supermarket or multi-buys from M&S if I'm feeling extravagant.
I find to my astonishment that it is possible to buy a plain T-shirt for £100! Who are these people that do this? I would expect to get 5 or 6 for that amount, minimum. Anyway, those are the people who can afford to find a bit more but how do you identify them?
And I'm sorry in advance to Messrs Hilfiger, Boss et al if your sales slump. Or you could try sensible pricing.
It must be glorious to have the job of trying to create and market new Veblen goods. Can we market a £5 tee shirt at £500; can we market a coffee mug for £400; a beer for £40 a pint. Profit wise it's a perpetual motion machine. Nice work if you can get it.
But personally I find Primark a bit pricey.
Everything's spenny these days. Try going to the theatre and paying retail. Extraordinary. Stick a US mini-series star in there and double it.
Plus there's that fantastic "Luxx" mag from the Times every Saturday or so. Watches at around £30,000 and the rest.
But it's all just relative. What @PJH spends on a t-shirt amounts to what a non-trivial proportion of the planet has to live on in a week. I don't mind if someone spends thirty grand on a watch because it will only be X% of their income.
Am I the only one on here that has taken the 8/1 from SkyBet on SKS getting fewer actual votes than the 12.9m in 2017?
Is 8/1 not fantastic value?
No, it could be a good bet if turnout is down..
The last election had 47m registered and a turnout of 67% = c.32m votes. 2017 election had 47m registered and a turnout of 69% = c.33m votes. Corbyn’s 12.9m was 40%
So if we assume 48m registered, but a turnout of say 60% (as in 2001), that’s 28.8m votes in total, so 12.9m votes is just under 45%
At 8/1 that’s actually a pretty good bet. @bigjohnowls
UK 54.7 Italy 49.0 France 43.4 EuroZone 42.9 Germany 38.5
Growth in the UK construction sector gained momentum during May, with activity and new business increasing at sharper rates than in April. Rising workloads prompted renewed expansions in purchasing activity and employment, while business confidence also strengthened.
Eurozone construction activity remained in a steep slump during May, according to the latest HCOB PMI® survey data, as new orders continued to fall sharply. The downturn led to the quickest drop in construction jobs in four years, while purchases and subcontractor use also decreased markedly.
Jeremy Hunt speaks up and it's like a breath of fresh air The evidence of Britain is that elections are always won from the centre ground and I think in a two-party system that will always be the case. We’ll always be a broad church, and I think that’s a good thing.
There it is. The Conservative Party is still in there somewhere. They missed a trick in not making him leader. Too late now, just another of history's "what if"s.
Jeremy Hunt is another rich pathetic spineless centrist public school rentier dork. He’d be like Sunak without the agreeable common touch and interestingly metrosexual clothing
He’d be like Cameron without all the sound self assessment and measured humility. Boris without the gravitas and probity. The Tories are doomed beyond doomed if they keep plugging away at this centrist shit that no one wants
Europe shows the future. It will be fought between left and populist right. Britain will get a successful populist right party in the end, it’s up to the Tories whether it is them or a party that replaces them
He's not a rentier (even if we accept the slur); he built his own business.
I note the collective thinking about where extra tax revenue might (needs to?) come from.
As an aside I have recently been upgrading my wardrobe and have been persuaded to raise my game from buying cheap T-shirts from the supermarket or multi-buys from M&S if I'm feeling extravagant.
I find to my astonishment that it is possible to buy a plain T-shirt for £100! Who are these people that do this? I would expect to get 5 or 6 for that amount, minimum. Anyway, those are the people who can afford to find a bit more but how do you identify them?
And I'm sorry in advance to Messrs Hilfiger, Boss et al if your sales slump. Or you could try sensible pricing.
It must be glorious to have the job of trying to create and market new Veblen goods. Can we market a £5 tee shirt at £500; can we market a coffee mug for £400; a beer for £40 a pint. Profit wise it's a perpetual motion machine. Nice work if you can get it.
But personally I find Primark a bit pricey.
I’m rather surprised that the OP is surprised. Paul Smith T-shirts have been around a long, long time.
I recall a certain anger from some quarters when it became clear that an EV saloon car could beat their “shiny dick with 2 chairs” on the quarter mile.
I have wondered whether Blue Mountain Civet coffee at £1000 per 100g might work as a business plan.
As only one of the figures with the Hitler moustaches are Jewish I can understand why they didn't see it as anti Semitic. John Cleese used to do Hitler moustache spoofs all the time. Tasteless isn't the same as anti semitic.
Sounds to me like the public have rapidly made up their mind.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Starmer will be PM on the 5th July
But still a wide window on the margin. That's where the interest and excitement is. Are we looking at a routine Thatcher Blair type landslide or something more exotic?
Diane Abbott was causing Labour bad news so the Tories have stepped in to get the public back on her (and Labour's) side.
There must be a mole in CCHQ, there is simply no other explanation.
No, the donation was in January, it had already happened when the row exploded, the figures have just come out as they always would today.
The Tories must have known it would resurface in the campaign. There is a Labour mole, I am sure of it.
I'm not sure where you get the mole from? The figures were due out today, what's a Labour mole got to do with it? They didn't return the 10 million so why would they worry about the 5 million? They clearly don't give a toss how it looks.
Diane Abbott was causing Labour bad news so the Tories have stepped in to get the public back on her (and Labour's) side.
There must be a mole in CCHQ, there is simply no other explanation.
No, the donation was in January, it had already happened when the row exploded, the figures have just come out as they always would today.
The Tories must have known it would resurface in the campaign. There is a Labour mole, I am sure of it.
I'm not sure where you get the mole from? The figures were due out today, what's a Labour mole got to do with it? They didn't return the 10 million so why would they worry about the 5 million? They clearly don't give a toss how it looks.
The fact they took it at all baffles me. And then they didn't give it back!
That's where the mole comes in, somebody is advising them against all common sense.
Not sure what you mean but I hope it is not connected to the widely condemned milk shake attack on Farage
Its a joke. Besides Farage appears to have set up the milkshake "attack" for publicity. And it worked beautifully.
You are a lib dem candidate joking about milkshakes attacks?
"Milkshake attacks". The work of the milkshake Taliban? Take it easy BigG. Think instead about Labour chaos in Wales and how that might play out in the GE and deliver Rishi a hatful of seats, or maybe not.
Good morning
The sad part about Gething is yet again another politician, this time a labour First Minister, deciding to ignore a vonc and carry on and at the same time has received the backing of Starmer
It will not change the GE result of a wipe out of conservative mps, but what is depressing is there seems to be no consequences for the lack of integrity amongst our leaders.
I notice Drakeford had a furious row with his colleagues over dropping the change to Welsh children's school holiday times as he arrogantly said it was his legacy, one which he hadn't been put out to public consultation and now the Welsh government has and found it to be unpopular especially with teachers so much so it will not be revisited until after the 2026 Senedd election
On another issue Ed Davey has come out this morning condemning labours vat raid on private schools which the Lib Dems do not support
There was three reasons for Gething's VoNC on the motion.
1) Accepting a donation from a businessman who has been convicted of environmental crimes. 2) Deleting his Covid-era WhatsApp messages 3) Sacking a minister and not disclosing the reason.
My own view is that 1 and 2 are enough to vote no-confidence. 3 is nothing, a political leader should have free rein to select who they want in their cabinet and that goes if you're PM, FM or just a leader of a district council.
Now, Sunak's taken £15m from someone who wants an MP shot (someone's been sent to prison for threatening Caroline Nokes just yesterday). As you're very exercised over a milkshake, you surely are concerned about people who want people shot? Sunak's deleted his Covid-era WhatsApp messages too.
I don't think that it's good for our politics to point to the other side and say that they do it too so I think that Gething should step down because he has lost his moral authority to lead. This could be a turning point in our politics for the better. I hope that you agree with me that Sunak should at least apologise for his misdeeds.
What public services do the Tories plan to cut to fund the gaps on their own spending plans?
Spending plans which, as always, assume fuel duty will be unfrozen (yeah right).
The Tories are an entirely known entity. There will be a tax threshold freeze and spending restraint in pay and in CSR.
Labour are not.
The Tories may be many things, but an entirely known entity is definitively not one of them.
I don't think that's true. I think it's pretty clear what they'd do, fiscally, over another 5-year term: I'd expect the tax threshold freeze to end and the structural deficit to be eliminated.
They've changed Prime Minister after each of the last three elections, the last time twice, and with increasingly large changes of policy.
Every marker is pointing to a 1997 result. I know we don't believe it - well some of us don't - but it's time to consider that it really is going to happen on current trends.
Diane Abbott was causing Labour bad news so the Tories have stepped in to get the public back on her (and Labour's) side.
There must be a mole in CCHQ, there is simply no other explanation.
No, the donation was in January, it had already happened when the row exploded, the figures have just come out as they always would today.
The Tories must have known it would resurface in the campaign. There is a Labour mole, I am sure of it.
I'm not sure where you get the mole from? The figures were due out today, what's a Labour mole got to do with it? They didn't return the 10 million so why would they worry about the 5 million? They clearly don't give a toss how it looks.
The fact they took it at all baffles me. And then they didn't give it back!
That's where the mole comes in, somebody is advising them against all common sense.
They took it before the story happened. They can't afford to give it back. And Welsh Labour have just yesterday shown us dodgy donations have no consequences, they even supercede VONCs. The whole system is rotten.
Diane Abbott was causing Labour bad news so the Tories have stepped in to get the public back on her (and Labour's) side.
There must be a mole in CCHQ, there is simply no other explanation.
No, the donation was in January, it had already happened when the row exploded, the figures have just come out as they always would today.
The Tories must have known it would resurface in the campaign. There is a Labour mole, I am sure of it.
I'm not sure where you get the mole from? The figures were due out today, what's a Labour mole got to do with it? They didn't return the 10 million so why would they worry about the 5 million? They clearly don't give a toss how it looks.
The fact they took it at all baffles me. And then they didn't give it back!
That's where the mole comes in, somebody is advising them against all common sense.
They took it before the story happened. They can't afford to give it back. And Welsh Labour have just yesterday shown us dodgy donations have no consequences, they even supercede VONCs. The whole system is rotten.
Diane Abbott was causing Labour bad news so the Tories have stepped in to get the public back on her (and Labour's) side.
There must be a mole in CCHQ, there is simply no other explanation.
No, the donation was in January, it had already happened when the row exploded, the figures have just come out as they always would today.
The Tories must have known it would resurface in the campaign. There is a Labour mole, I am sure of it.
I'm not sure where you get the mole from? The figures were due out today, what's a Labour mole got to do with it? They didn't return the 10 million so why would they worry about the 5 million? They clearly don't give a toss how it looks.
The fact they took it at all baffles me. And then they didn't give it back!
That's where the mole comes in, somebody is advising them against all common sense.
They took it before the story happened. They can't afford to give it back. And Welsh Labour have just yesterday shown us dodgy donations have no consequences, they even supercede VONCs. The whole system is rotten.
Every marker is pointing to a 1997 result. I know we don't believe it - well some of us don't - but it's time to consider that it really is going to happen on current trends.
Yep, I think we end up with a 15 point labour win and 1997ish seat totals
Thanks all again for your advice and thoughts yday. Aunt duly reported to insurance company and let them handle it. Didn't report it to plod but will take advice from insurers.
AUNT UPDATE II: I went round to hers to discuss it all last night and there was a knock on the door. I don't want to dox anyone, least of all myself or my aunt, but she lives in what I would say was one of the nicest streets in one of the nicest parts of her constituency. The door-knocker was a fresh-faced Lab canvasser. I recoiled and recovered only to congratulate him on covering the area. I took a leaflet and bade him farewell and good luck. Lab really are going for it.
Nigeria's economy seems to be disintegrating with inflation, a general strike and its monthly minimum wage now not much more than the UK's hourly minimum wage:
Tim Montgomerie hypothesises that the election was called to enforce certain Rishi favoured candidates in seats the Tories think they will hold.
Tim Montgomerie is somewhat quixotic; actually scrap that he’s completely and utterly mental, as in pay three farthings to point and laugh at the gibbering Bedlam inmate mental.
D Day memorial incredibly moving as they read the words of veterans who were there and are there today.
I usually avoid WW2 docs and run for the hills from docs with re-enactments but I read a blistering review of BBC’s “D-Day, the unheard tapes” in the Guardian and thought that if they were creaming over it it’s either brilliant or focussed on how the minorities won the beaches.
Anyway, it really was very good. They do this thing where they have contemporary actors dressed in clothes of the post war period lip-synching to recordings of their characters perfectly but the same actors re-enacting actions they discuss. It works brilliantly as we’ve seen all the re-enactments before but they are very much made real by the recordings being lip-synced as it’s not an “old man” or woman but someone much more relatable.
Diane Abbott was causing Labour bad news so the Tories have stepped in to get the public back on her (and Labour's) side.
There must be a mole in CCHQ, there is simply no other explanation.
No, the donation was in January, it had already happened when the row exploded, the figures have just come out as they always would today.
The Tories must have known it would resurface in the campaign. There is a Labour mole, I am sure of it.
I'm not sure where you get the mole from? The figures were due out today, what's a Labour mole got to do with it? They didn't return the 10 million so why would they worry about the 5 million? They clearly don't give a toss how it looks.
The fact they took it at all baffles me. And then they didn't give it back!
That's where the mole comes in, somebody is advising them against all common sense.
They took it before the story happened. They can't afford to give it back. And Welsh Labour have just yesterday shown us dodgy donations have no consequences, they even supercede VONCs. The whole system is rotten.
Welsh Labour is a joke.
Sadly it is not a joke to those of us living in Wales and apparently he has received Starmer's full backing
It just plays into the public's disdain of politicians and politics
Am I the only one on here that has taken the 8/1 from SkyBet on SKS getting fewer actual votes than the 12.9m in 2017?
Is 8/1 not fantastic value?
No, it could be a good bet if turnout is down..
The last election had 47m registered and a turnout of 67% = c.32m votes. 2017 election had 47m registered and a turnout of 69% = c.33m votes. Corbyn’s 12.9m was 40%
So if we assume 48m registered, but a turnout of say 60% (as in 2001), that’s 28.8m votes in total, so 12.9m votes is just under 45%
At 8/1 that’s actually a pretty good bet. @bigjohnowls
Every marker is pointing to a 1997 result. I know we don't believe it - well some of us don't - but it's time to consider that it really is going to happen on current trends.
Yep, I think we end up with a 15 point labour win and 1997ish seat totals
A large amount of people on here still think Labour will struggle to hit the 1997 total and I massively encourage them to bet on it at the current great odds.
There’s still a lot that *could* happen but time is running out.
All of this confirms to me that if the Tories had a centrist candidate that people like me could vote for, they'd be walking this.
Whether you are joking or not, the Cons made a decision to pander to the extreme. But it didn't work. It was never going to work. Because they will never be extreme enough to satisfy the extreme and lo, look at Nige returning.
They *should* have given up the absurd "lead by Francois" approach and gone straight back to the "centre". Thing is, with the finances so blown up by Covid and people beaten down by CoL/Ukraine they had precious little wiggle room.
Comments
Ends with the day of the debate too so any Rishi bounce from that not yet caught
Otherwise we end up with the last NHS IT project failure, or whatever the **** happened at the Post Office.
Multi-salaries.
Snout in the trough.
No honesty and integrity because they are frightened to tell the truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gxVQpsibyY
Prevention is better than cure.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23318039.douglas-ross-responds-celtic-fans-var-decision-c--banner/
New Zealand and Israel also have PR and right of centre governments. Spain and Germany have centre left governments with PR but in both nations the centre right lead the polls.
Looking back, I think definitive moment of Sunak's premiership might have been abstention on Johnson privileges committee vote - the choice not to choose; the inability to distinguish between tactical discretion and raw cowardice.
https://t.co/xtwjXAz7gk
IMHO it should apply with fewer exemptions at a much lower rate. Like 10%. 40% is too high.
I look forward to the attempts to do everything on paper! Without printing... Bring back the typing pools!
It will also save some bluewall seats from going LD, many of which will have lots of £1 million+ homes.
Plus Kensington and Bayswater, Chelsea and Fulham and Cities of London and Westminster are all marginal seats now where the average house price is well over £1 million. Even homes over the £325k threshold would still welcome that threshold rising to £2 million as that also means they could pass on other assets as well as the family home to their children inheritance tax free
Protecting the economy from the full force of an energy hit made sense.
IMO the government did a pretty good job of protecting the economy, helping people generally, helping the vulnerable more and also encouraging energy efficiency.
The one excess spending was to give the oldies a second year of increased WFA - it will be interesting to see if Starmer and Reeves give them a third.
What the government has failed to do is explain how much help it gave people at the time and that taxes would have to rise to pay for it.
You don’t think people with £10m in non-property assets wouldn’t keep them in an offshore trust?
The BBC is especially bad at this, finding case studies which fit the picture they want to paint. What they never manage to find and analyse is a few households where they are poor because they are useless wasters and their children are disadvantaged because their parents/parent/step parent(s) are idiots.
Surely we all think that a 450+ seat Labour Party would quickly use its majority to do some easy wins, even if it makes it less popular?
You may as well go after rich pensioners and the like because you are not going to suffer electorally for it AND you won’t risk a breakaway faction of Labour MPs, unlike some other moves might.
As an aside I have recently been upgrading my wardrobe and have been persuaded to raise my game from buying cheap T-shirts from the supermarket or multi-buys from M&S if I'm feeling extravagant.
I find to my astonishment that it is possible to buy a plain T-shirt for £100! Who are these people that do this? I would expect to get 5 or 6 for that amount, minimum. Anyway, those are the people who can afford to find a bit more but how do you identify them?
And I'm sorry in advance to Messrs Hilfiger, Boss et al if your sales slump. Or you could try sensible pricing.
People subject to such taxes can also chose to take their business elsewhere.
That said I just looked at the train fare and it's £270 return, so maybe not.
47% now say Labour ready.
Equal to record high for Starmer's Labour and what David Cameron was getting before entering number 10.
https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1798626114795192521
Sounds to me like the public have rapidly made up their mind.
Not sure if that's rounding or an error on their part
Is 8/1 not fantastic value?
The losers would be the accountants, lawyers, and ‘advisors’, who can go and do something more productive with their lives.
'No Prime Minister or government has started an election campaign with worse satisfaction ratings since Ipsos started measuring public opinion just before Margaret Thatcher’s first election victory,' says @GideonSkinner, politics head @IpsosUK
* Sir Keir maintains his clear lead over Mr Sunak as the “most capable Prime Minister” by 46 per cent to 22 per cent, compared to 44 per cent to 22 per cent last month.
* But nearly half of adults, 49 per cent still say they do not know what the Labour leader stands for, with only 32 per cent disagreeing, both figures little changed since February. The respective figures for Mr Sunak are 41 per cent, down five points, and 38 per cent, similar to February.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-poll-latest-keir-starmer-rishi-sunak-labour-conservatives-b1162487.html
Not really much to say other than this is a disaster for the Tories. If they hadn't done Truss/Sunak they might have been in with a chance.
But personally I find Primark a bit pricey.
There are over 750 quangos and yes you have to list the ones you want to ditch. Nobody in government wants to kill them off so they dont look. But lets kick off with OBR, The country functioned without it, it's an Osborne wheeze, it will stop Reeves doing anything and it duplicates other government forecasters. I'd love to tell you how much that saves but it doesnt publish figures.
And as I if you dont start looking it isnt just going to fall in to your lap.
Anyway Im off for liquid lunch in Brum so have a nice morning.
It brings total from their biggest donor, who @rowenamason revealed said looking at Diane Abbott makes you ‘want to hate all black women’, to £15m.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1798603704737939898
Diane Abbott was causing Labour bad news so the Tories have stepped in to get the public back on her (and Labour's) side.
There must be a mole in CCHQ, there is simply no other explanation.
Plus there's that fantastic "Luxx" mag from the Times every Saturday or so. Watches at around £30,000 and the rest.
But it's all just relative. What @PJH spends on a t-shirt amounts to what a non-trivial proportion of the planet has to live on in a week. I don't mind if someone spends thirty grand on a watch because it will only be X% of their income.
2017 election had 47m registered and a turnout of 69% = c.33m votes.
Corbyn’s 12.9m was 40%
So if we assume 48m registered, but a turnout of say 60% (as in 2001), that’s 28.8m votes in total, so 12.9m votes is just under 45%
At 8/1 that’s actually a pretty good bet. @bigjohnowls
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/
UK 54.7
Italy 49.0
France 43.4
EuroZone 42.9
Germany 38.5
Growth in the UK construction sector gained momentum during May, with activity and new business increasing at
sharper rates than in April. Rising workloads prompted renewed expansions in purchasing activity and employment, while business confidence also strengthened.
Eurozone construction activity remained in a steep slump during May, according to the latest HCOB PMI® survey data, as new orders continued to fall sharply. The downturn led to the quickest drop in construction jobs in four years, while purchases and subcontractor use also decreased markedly.
https://www.pmi.spglobal.com/Public/Release/PressReleases
If we were still in the EU we would be getting another wave of 'Polish plumbers'.
I recall a certain anger from some quarters when it became clear that an EV saloon car could beat their “shiny dick with 2 chairs” on the quarter mile.
I have wondered whether Blue Mountain Civet coffee at £1000 per 100g might work as a business plan.
Tim Montgomerie hypothesises that the election was called to enforce certain Rishi favoured candidates in seats the Tories think they will hold.
They didn't return the 10 million so why would they worry about the 5 million? They clearly don't give a toss how it looks.
That's where the mole comes in, somebody is advising them against all common sense.
1) Accepting a donation from a businessman who has been convicted of environmental crimes.
2) Deleting his Covid-era WhatsApp messages
3) Sacking a minister and not disclosing the reason.
My own view is that 1 and 2 are enough to vote no-confidence. 3 is nothing, a political leader should have free rein to select who they want in their cabinet and that goes if you're PM, FM or just a leader of a district council.
Now, Sunak's taken £15m from someone who wants an MP shot (someone's been sent to prison for threatening Caroline Nokes just yesterday). As you're very exercised over a milkshake, you surely are concerned about people who want people shot? Sunak's deleted his Covid-era WhatsApp messages too.
I don't think that it's good for our politics to point to the other side and say that they do it too so I think that Gething should step down because he has lost his moral authority to lead. This could be a turning point in our politics for the better. I hope that you agree with me that Sunak should at least apologise for his misdeeds.
You're seeing what you want to see.
How much trouble is Rishi Sunak in? Look at his leader satisfaction ratings going into a General Election vs past Prime Ministers...
https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1798628603330166935
Every marker is pointing to a 1997 result. I know we don't believe it - well some of us don't - but it's time to consider that it really is going to happen on current trends.
And Welsh Labour have just yesterday shown us dodgy donations have no consequences, they even supercede VONCs. The whole system is rotten.
Any polls coming out soon that contain that?
Thanks all again for your advice and thoughts yday. Aunt duly reported to insurance company and let them handle it. Didn't report it to plod but will take advice from insurers.
AUNT UPDATE II:
I went round to hers to discuss it all last night and there was a knock on the door. I don't want to dox anyone, least of all myself or my aunt, but she lives in what I would say was one of the nicest streets in one of the nicest parts of her constituency. The door-knocker was a fresh-faced Lab canvasser. I recoiled and recovered only to congratulate him on covering the area. I took a leaflet and bade him farewell and good luck. Lab really are going for it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-68402662
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffvrp31Rb-c
Perhaps Nigerian is vastly overpopulated for its economic capacity ?
Anyway, it really was very good. They do this thing where they have contemporary actors dressed in clothes of the post war period lip-synching to recordings of their characters perfectly but the same actors re-enacting actions they discuss. It works brilliantly as we’ve seen all the re-enactments before but they are very much made real by the recordings being lip-synced as it’s not an “old man” or woman but someone much more relatable.
Three episodes very well made.
It just plays into the public's disdain of politicians and politics
There’s still a lot that *could* happen but time is running out.
They *should* have given up the absurd "lead by Francois" approach and gone straight back to the "centre". Thing is, with the finances so blown up by Covid and people beaten down by CoL/Ukraine they had precious little wiggle room.
As the next government will find out on July 5th.