The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
Living in millionaire households - actual individual millionaires will be lower.
"The latest statistics, from 2020, show that 27 percent of those 65 and over live in households with a total wealth of £1m or more. The data does not show whether these individuals are millionaires, and much of the wealth comes from house and pension value, rather than disposable financial wealth."
And that is from 2020, reasonable asset price inflation since then so I suspect it will be pushing a third now.
IIRC the state pension, by itself has a value of about £250k
Fidelity came up with £223k equivalent via an annuity. But its not included in wealth as its not guaranteed or ring fenced but a benefit at the whim of the govt....
I wonder what yield a triple locked index linked gilt would trade at?
The Triple Lock has added about £10-12 per week iirc over pure CPI linked since it was introduced in 2011 or whenever (last time I ran the numbers).
So not ta huge difference between triple locked and CPI linked.
5% above CPI in just a decade is a not insignificant rise. Especially considering many other expenses have been subject to austerity in that time so risen less than CPI not above it.
That's approximately £6 billion cost per annum and guaranteed to only keep rising as long as the lock exists.
Would you say £30 billion over the lifetime of a Parliament is not huge?
Government expenditure over a parliament is something like £6,000 Bn
So £30 bn is 0.5% or so.
And nothing on the £130 billion lost from cuts to fuel duty since 2010, now approaching £20 billion per year.
It's probably the most regressive policy measure the Conservatives introduced, with most of the benefit going to the top income deciles even while the costs of public transport increased (or stopped being provided at all).
The existence of fuel duty is one of the most regressive taxes we have nowadays, I completely agree.
Fuel duty means that those who can afford a nice electric vehicle to get about are exempt from paying the tax. Those who get subsidised trains to get to well paying jobs are not only exempt from the tax but getting subsidised to get to work.
Those who can't afford an EV but can afford a hybrid pay some tax, but not as much.
While those who can only afford an old banger and need it to get to work are paying the most.
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
England being forced to play some old fashioned test cricket here to finish off a spirited Sri Lanka. It's been very hard work and credit to SL who seemed to come into the test a little under cooked.
Its not over yet either. A couple of wickets and it would be game on again.
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
Indeed, the key is to eliminate the cliff edges and merge the taxes into one, so rather than facing a 70% tax rate or a 20% tax rate depending upon circumstances, you have a consistent tax rate across the board.
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
You'd also create significant regional imbalances for the poorest, being poor in London would be much worse than being poor in Hartlepool. So it would encourage a kind of levelling up, but delivered harshly. Still in favour though.
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
Indeed, the key is to eliminate the cliff edges and merge the taxes into one, so rather than facing a 70% tax rate or a 20% tax rate depending upon circumstances, you have a consistent tax rate across the board.
I agree re the cliff edges and would get rid of NI and Income and combine into one. I know you are keen on a flat rate after that. I am more inclined to a progressive rates so as to give the lower income people a smaller tax burden, not just in real terms, but also percentage terms which of course means a higher tax rate at the top as we have now.
However I am open on being convinced otherwise.
The thing I like about UBI as it does eliminate so many of the cracks people fall through that cause poverty and unfairness in the benefits/tax system. The tax/benefits graph should be either a straight line graph (like you prefer) or a curve (like I prefer). It should not be one with lots of steps going up and down, which I think we both agree on.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
Living in millionaire households - actual individual millionaires will be lower.
"The latest statistics, from 2020, show that 27 percent of those 65 and over live in households with a total wealth of £1m or more. The data does not show whether these individuals are millionaires, and much of the wealth comes from house and pension value, rather than disposable financial wealth."
And that is from 2020, reasonable asset price inflation since then so I suspect it will be pushing a third now.
IIRC the state pension, by itself has a value of about £250k
Fidelity came up with £223k equivalent via an annuity. But its not included in wealth as its not guaranteed or ring fenced but a benefit at the whim of the govt....
I wonder what yield a triple locked index linked gilt would trade at?
The Triple Lock has added about £10-12 per week iirc over pure CPI linked since it was introduced in 2011 or whenever (last time I ran the numbers).
So not ta huge difference between triple locked and CPI linked.
5% above CPI in just a decade is a not insignificant rise. Especially considering many other expenses have been subject to austerity in that time so risen less than CPI not above it.
That's approximately £6 billion cost per annum and guaranteed to only keep rising as long as the lock exists.
Would you say £30 billion over the lifetime of a Parliament is not huge?
Government expenditure over a parliament is something like £6,000 Bn
So £30 bn is 0.5% or so.
And nothing on the £130 billion lost from cuts to fuel duty since 2010, now approaching £20 billion per year.
It's probably the most regressive policy measure the Conservatives introduced, with most of the benefit going to the top income deciles even while the costs of public transport increased (or stopped being provided at all).
The existence of fuel duty is one of the most regressive taxes we have nowadays, I completely agree.
Fuel duty means that those who can afford a nice electric vehicle to get about are exempt from paying the tax. Those who get subsidised trains to get to well paying jobs are not only exempt from the tax but getting subsidised to get to work.
Those who can't afford an EV but can afford a hybrid pay some tax, but not as much.
While those who can only afford an old banger and need it to get to work are paying the most.
Completely regressive.
Plus we want an active economy where people are moving around and finding the most productive (and hence best paid) jobs they can do. Taxing movement is not only regressive in the way that you describe but also highly inimical to growth. Remember those heady days of, gosh, nearly a month ago, when our Chancellor made clear that all changes should be measured against whether they add to or take away from growth? Those were the days.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
Living in millionaire households - actual individual millionaires will be lower.
"The latest statistics, from 2020, show that 27 percent of those 65 and over live in households with a total wealth of £1m or more. The data does not show whether these individuals are millionaires, and much of the wealth comes from house and pension value, rather than disposable financial wealth."
And that is from 2020, reasonable asset price inflation since then so I suspect it will be pushing a third now.
IIRC the state pension, by itself has a value of about £250k
Fidelity came up with £223k equivalent via an annuity. But its not included in wealth as its not guaranteed or ring fenced but a benefit at the whim of the govt....
I wonder what yield a triple locked index linked gilt would trade at?
The Triple Lock has added about £10-12 per week iirc over pure CPI linked since it was introduced in 2011 or whenever (last time I ran the numbers).
So not ta huge difference between triple locked and CPI linked.
5% above CPI in just a decade is a not insignificant rise. Especially considering many other expenses have been subject to austerity in that time so risen less than CPI not above it.
That's approximately £6 billion cost per annum and guaranteed to only keep rising as long as the lock exists.
Would you say £30 billion over the lifetime of a Parliament is not huge?
Government expenditure over a parliament is something like £6,000 Bn
So £30 bn is 0.5% or so.
And nothing on the £130 billion lost from cuts to fuel duty since 2010, now approaching £20 billion per year.
It's probably the most regressive policy measure the Conservatives introduced, with most of the benefit going to the top income deciles even while the costs of public transport increased (or stopped being provided at all).
The existence of fuel duty is one of the most regressive taxes we have nowadays, I completely agree.
Fuel duty means that those who can afford a nice electric vehicle to get about are exempt from paying the tax. Those who get subsidised trains to get to well paying jobs are not only exempt from the tax but getting subsidised to get to work.
Those who can't afford an EV but can afford a hybrid pay some tax, but not as much.
While those who can only afford an old banger and need it to get to work are paying the most.
Completely regressive.
Plus we want an active economy where people are moving around and finding the most productive (and hence best paid) jobs they can do. Taxing movement is not only regressive in the way that you describe but also highly inimical to growth. Remember those heady days of, gosh, nearly a month ago, when our Chancellor made clear that all changes should be measured against whether they add to or take away from growth? Those were the days.
FPT:
Ideally we would replace all motoring taxation with something that actually targets that what harms the economy and society - parking and short journeys inside urban areas, air pollution, carbon emissions, heavy vehicles chewing up the roads, dangerous vehicles that cause serious injuries and fatalities.
Driving a small hatchback in the north of Scotland should be much, much cheaper, and that this would benefit me massively has not influenced my thinking on this at all .
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
You'd also create significant regional imbalances for the poorest, being poor in London would be much worse than being poor in Hartlepool. So it would encourage a kind of levelling up, but delivered harshly. Still in favour though.
Yep it is not easy. There are other issues as well. How you deal with children is another.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
Can't do what? Make the odd witty comment at PMQs that the small percentage who really pay attention to politics might appreciate? Devise policies that will never be implemented? Watch helplessly as an overwhelming majority means that the government can do whatever it likes however irrational or self harming and all your work and smart comments are to no avail?
Worrying about who the next Tory leader is shows that you haven't come to terms with what happened last month. They are irrelevant and will be for 10 years now. That is the price of complete failure.
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
You'd also create significant regional imbalances for the poorest, being poor in London would be much worse than being poor in Hartlepool. So it would encourage a kind of levelling up, but delivered harshly. Still in favour though.
Actually, that's a feature, not a bug.
It would effectively act as a tax on London living, and a subsidy for Hartlepool living. People would move from London to Hartlepool, which would help rebalance the country somewhat.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
You'd also create significant regional imbalances for the poorest, being poor in London would be much worse than being poor in Hartlepool. So it would encourage a kind of levelling up, but delivered harshly. Still in favour though.
Actually, that's a feature, not a bug.
It would effectively act as a tax on London living, and a subsidy for Hartlepool living. People would move from London to Hartlepool, which would help rebalance the country somewhat.
As I said it is harsh but does deliver a kind of levelling up or rebalancing. For UK plc it is a feature. For the poor in London its definitely a bug.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
If anybody was to call Big Brother "SirCrasherooniSnoozefest" they'd soon lose their newspaper column. In fact they'd be damned lucky to avoid Room101.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
You'd also create significant regional imbalances for the poorest, being poor in London would be much worse than being poor in Hartlepool. So it would encourage a kind of levelling up, but delivered harshly. Still in favour though.
Actually, that's a feature, not a bug.
It would effectively act as a tax on London living, and a subsidy for Hartlepool living. People would move from London to Hartlepool, which would help rebalance the country somewhat.
As I said it is harsh but does deliver a kind of levelling up or rebalancing. For UK plc it is a feature. For the poor in London its definitely a bug.
It would mean employers in London would need to offer more money to make up for the fact that - in effect - people were being paid to leave the city.
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
You'd also create significant regional imbalances for the poorest, being poor in London would be much worse than being poor in Hartlepool. So it would encourage a kind of levelling up, but delivered harshly. Still in favour though.
Actually, that's a feature, not a bug.
It would effectively act as a tax on London living, and a subsidy for Hartlepool living. People would move from London to Hartlepool, which would help rebalance the country somewhat.
As I said it is harsh but does deliver a kind of levelling up or rebalancing. For UK plc it is a feature. For the poor in London its definitely a bug.
It would mean employers in London would need to offer more money to make up for the fact that - in effect - people were being paid to leave the city.
To be fair, I would be happy to pay to leave London.
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
You'd also create significant regional imbalances for the poorest, being poor in London would be much worse than being poor in Hartlepool. So it would encourage a kind of levelling up, but delivered harshly. Still in favour though.
Actually, that's a feature, not a bug.
It would effectively act as a tax on London living, and a subsidy for Hartlepool living. People would move from London to Hartlepool, which would help rebalance the country somewhat.
As I said it is harsh but does deliver a kind of levelling up or rebalancing. For UK plc it is a feature. For the poor in London its definitely a bug.
It would mean employers in London would need to offer more money to make up for the fact that - in effect - people were being paid to leave the city.
You know how canvassing wisdom is that, when you meet a voter for the other lot, you thank them for them time then quickly move on? You don't try to put them right, because it causes more trouble and wastes more time than it's worth.
KB gives the impression of being the sort of candidate who will insist on putting every voter straight, no matter the cost. That's not a winning strategy.
What the Conservatives really need is another Michael Howard. Someone prepared to be LotO whilst knowing that they're vanishingly unlikely to become PM, but that they could prepare the way for their successor.
Do any of the current batch have the self-awareness to do that, and the necessary dishonesty to present themselves as a PM in waiting anyway? I don't know, but Cleverly might come closest.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
There's a horrific video of a stabbing in Birmingham circulating on social media. The worst part is that it was originally posted by one of the attackers with laughing emojis as if the whole thing was a big joke.
Thankfully it looks like arrests have been made already.
i call bullshit outlier on any poll that shows Reform winning 8 seats at Holyrood.
Anas Sarwar is set to return Labour to power at Holyrood for the first time in 19 years after a close-fought Scottish election that would herald the political rebirth of Alex Salmond, according to a new poll.
In an unprecedented scenario, the SNP would narrowly win the most seats in 2026 to become Scotland’s largest party. But it would fail to secure sufficient support to form a government. This would be the closest result since 2007, when Salmond’s SNP defeated Labour, led by Jack McConnell, by one seat.
Unionist parties would almost certainly block the SNP’s route to Bute House, the first minister’s official residence, with an informal alliance that would position Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, as first minister of a minority administration.
It would mean that, for the first time since devolution, the biggest party at Holyrood might not form the government.
Heaping further misery upon SNP prospects, Salmond would make a dramatic return to the Scottish parliament with his Alba Party winning four seats.
The Unionist configuration of Holyrood would also be upended by the emergence of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, which would win eight MSPs — mostly at the expense of the Scottish Conservatives whose representation would almost halve to 18.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
To be fair, you could post a video of Harris calling in 2020 for effective defunding of the police post-George Floyd and now proclaiming her pro-law and order credentials, or indeed claiming Biden was a racist and then becoming his VP. Such pivots are common in the States.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
Funny Trump can't even get that right given being an anti-vaxxer is one of the few consistent and seemingly sincere opinions RFK, Jr has held for years.
The Nortstat poll found that 33 per cent of the electorate still planned to vote SNP in their local constituency, compared with 30 per cent for Labour. The Tories’ plunging polling figures are reflected with only 12 per cent backing them, while 9 per cent said they would vote Reform; 8 per cent, Liberal Democrat; 5 per cent, Green; and others picking up 2 per cent.
The new poll reveals that Starmer is the least unpopular leader in Scotland with an overall rating of -5. Sarwar scored -8 and Swinney -11. Douglas Ross, the outgoing Scottish Conservative leader, scored -50.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
TSE's going to look a right 'nana with those graphs when Mel Stride hoses up.
Nah, I tipped him at 75, I shall display all my legendary modesty if that's a winner.
I need to have words with Betdata.io
It is their charts, I pay £48 a month so I can get these graphs for PB and they still cannot show Mel Stride on the graphs.
I remember that site, back when it launched. Nice idea, but they still can't do live odds?
The few crude betting bots I built used betangel to populate excel with live odds, but that was some time ago. Simple excel formula can record odds from that, for much less than £48/mo
I'd assumed things had moved on with the api stuff. Maybe betfair are being dickheads limiting/charging extortionate amounts for their requests these days?
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
To be fair, you could post a video of Harris calling in 2020 for effective defunding of the police post-George Floyd and now proclaiming her pro-law and order credentials, or indeed claiming Biden was a racist and then becoming his VP. Such pivots are common in the States.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
To be fair, you could post a video of Harris calling in 2020 for effective defunding of the police post-George Floyd and now proclaiming her pro-law and order credentials, or indeed claiming Biden was a racist and then becoming his VP. Such pivots are common in the States.
TSE's going to look a right 'nana with those graphs when Mel Stride hoses up.
Nah, I tipped him at 75, I shall display all my legendary modesty if that's a winner.
I need to have words with Betdata.io
It is their charts, I pay £48 a month so I can get these graphs for PB and they still cannot show Mel Stride on the graphs.
I remember that site, back when it launched. Nice idea, but they still can't do live odds?
The few crude betting bots I built used betangel to populate excel with live odds, but that was some time ago.
I'd assumed things had moved on with the api stuff. Maybe betfair are being dickheads limiting/charging extortionate amounts for their requests these days?
They have a cheaper version for £20 a month but it isn't as live as this.
I think it is Betfair being rotters with their charges.
TSE's going to look a right 'nana with those graphs when Mel Stride hoses up.
Nah, I tipped him at 75, I shall display all my legendary modesty if that's a winner.
I need to have words with Betdata.io
It is their charts, I pay £48 a month so I can get these graphs for PB and they still cannot show Mel Stride on the graphs.
I remember that site, back when it launched. Nice idea, but they still can't do live odds?
The few crude betting bots I built used betangel to populate excel with live odds, but that was some time ago.
I'd assumed things had moved on with the api stuff. Maybe betfair are being dickheads limiting/charging extortionate amounts for their requests these days?
Betfair's data stream is huge. Even BF have struggled to store their own data. (The every single tick stuff)
If it was just down to Conservative members then Badenoch would likely won. However I think a Jenrick and Tugendhat final 2 is the likeliest outcome amongst Tory MPs who would then be submitted to party members
If anybody was to call Big Brother "SirCrasherooniSnoozefest" they'd soon lose their newspaper column. In fact they'd be damned lucky to avoid Room101.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
To be fair, you could post a video of Harris calling in 2020 for effective defunding of the police post-George Floyd and now proclaiming her pro-law and order credentials, or indeed claiming Biden was a racist and then becoming his VP. Such pivots are common in the States.
Actual Harris quotes for comparison please
That would, in any event, be missing the point. What’s eminently clear from the convention is that the Democrats are united.
DJT just chucked his VP under the bus. I doubt it will get better for them from here.
'A would-be burglar in Rome was caught after stopping to read a book on Greek mythology in the middle of a robbery, Italian media report.
The 38-year-old reportedly gained access to a flat in the Italian capital's Prati district via the balcony but became distracted after picking up a book about Homer's Iliad on a bedside table.
If it was just down to Conservative members then Badenoch would likely won. However I think a Jenrick and Tugendhat final 2 is the likeliest outcome amongst Tory MPs who would then be submitted to party members
I simply don't understand why Tory members seem to like Badenoch so much. She's not done or said anything of great merit so far as I can see. The same was true with Truss. I think the Tory party should have a bit of a look at their membership - they must be Labour voters or Russian influencers on their second chance have been booted from PB.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
Funny Trump can't even get that right given being an anti-vaxxer is one of the few consistent and seemingly sincere opinions RFK, Jr has held for years.
Its not difficult. Trump is a liar. Everything he says and everything he does is a lie. If you apply that principle you will be right far, far more often than you are wrong.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
Funny Trump can't even get that right given being an anti-vaxxer is one of the few consistent and seemingly sincere opinions RFK, Jr has held for years.
Its not difficult. Trump is a liar. Everything he says and everything he does is a lie. If you apply that principle you will be right far, far more often than you are wrong.
Any time Trump tells the truth is entirely accidental.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
Funny Trump can't even get that right given being an anti-vaxxer is one of the few consistent and seemingly sincere opinions RFK, Jr has held for years.
Its not difficult. Trump is a liar. Everything he says and everything he does is a lie. If you apply that principle you will be right far, far more often than you are wrong.
Whatever he is I think he did want to run the chance of an insurrection installing him as President. He'd be in prison here. The US has historically taken a more extreme view about such things. It's all very odd.
"Carrie Johnson has returned to the political frontline. The former Tory PM’s wife is assisting Robert Jenrick in his bid for the Tory leadership. ‘Carrie is helping Rob,’ a Jenrick ally informed me. ‘She’s making calls for him.’ "
Will Boris Johnson step in as kingmaker or queenmaker for the Tories?
Can't do what? Make the odd witty comment at PMQs that the small percentage who really pay attention to politics might appreciate? Devise policies that will never be implemented? Watch helplessly as an overwhelming majority means that the government can do whatever it likes however irrational or self harming and all your work and smart comments are to no avail?
Worrying about who the next Tory leader is shows that you haven't come to terms with what happened last month. They are irrelevant and will be for 10 years now. That is the price of complete failure.
Given the Labour government is already on a -26% rating with Yougov this is clearly not 1997 when Blair's government had a long honeymoon, so any new Tory leader has a better environment than Hague faced, even if slightly less seats to start on
SNP 41 Labour 40 Con 18 LDs 8 Greens 10 Alba 4 Reform 8
Not enough seats for another SNP and Green majority on those numbers, even if Alba backed them.
Not enough seats for a Labour and LD majority either. So Scottish Conservatives would hold the balance of power even with fewer seats, not impossible they could offer to keep Swinney in power in return for a commitment to abandon any indyref2 push. In 2007 the SCons kept a minority Salmond government in power of course
Can't do what? Make the odd witty comment at PMQs that the small percentage who really pay attention to politics might appreciate? Devise policies that will never be implemented? Watch helplessly as an overwhelming majority means that the government can do whatever it likes however irrational or self harming and all your work and smart comments are to no avail?
Worrying about who the next Tory leader is shows that you haven't come to terms with what happened last month. They are irrelevant and will be for 10 years now. That is the price of complete failure.
Given the Labour government is already on a -26% rating with Yougov this is clearly not 1997 when Blair's government had a long honeymoon, so any new Tory leader has a better environment than Hague faced, even if slightly less seats to start on
True, but the current Tories are shite. They have more to fear from the nutters in Reform than Labour do from them.
Can't do what? Make the odd witty comment at PMQs that the small percentage who really pay attention to politics might appreciate? Devise policies that will never be implemented? Watch helplessly as an overwhelming majority means that the government can do whatever it likes however irrational or self harming and all your work and smart comments are to no avail?
Worrying about who the next Tory leader is shows that you haven't come to terms with what happened last month. They are irrelevant and will be for 10 years now. That is the price of complete failure.
Given the Labour government is already on a -26% rating with Yougov this is clearly not 1997 when Blair's government had a long honeymoon, so any new Tory leader has a better environment than Hague faced, even if slightly less seats to start on
True, but the current Tories are shite. They have more to fear from the nutters in Reform than Labour do from them.
On current polling Reform are taking more Labour 2024 voters than Tory 2024 voters
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
Funny Trump can't even get that right given being an anti-vaxxer is one of the few consistent and seemingly sincere opinions RFK, Jr has held for years.
Its not difficult. Trump is a liar. Everything he says and everything he does is a lie. If you apply that principle you will be right far, far more often than you are wrong.
Whatever he is I think he did want to run the chance of an insurrection installing him as President. He'd be in prison here. The US has historically taken a more extreme view about such things. It's all very odd.
It is indeed weird. The US produced the most successful economy in the history of the world by applying the rule of law vigorously. The extent to which Trump has been able to avoid justice, not just recently but throughout his career, undermines this. He should have been remanded in custody January 2021.
If it was just down to Conservative members then Badenoch would likely won. However I think a Jenrick and Tugendhat final 2 is the likeliest outcome amongst Tory MPs who would then be submitted to party members
I simply don't understand why Tory members seem to like Badenoch so much. She's not done or said anything of great merit so far as I can see. The same was true with Truss. I think the Tory party should have a bit of a look at their membership - they must be Labour voters or Russian influencers on their second chance have been booted from PB.
1. She preaches the Olde Tyme Religion, which is comforting for any party. 2. She allows the party to display its "Not A Racist" credentials.
Question is whether Badenoch is "membership comfort zone" enough to force the members to snap out of it, or whether they will go for someone even more self indulgent next time. Is she Hague/EdM, or is she IDS/Corbyn?
If it was just down to Conservative members then Badenoch would likely won. However I think a Jenrick and Tugendhat final 2 is the likeliest outcome amongst Tory MPs who would then be submitted to party members
I simply don't understand why Tory members seem to like Badenoch so much. She's not done or said anything of great merit so far as I can see. The same was true with Truss. I think the Tory party should have a bit of a look at their membership - they must be Labour voters or Russian influencers on their second chance have been booted from PB.
1. She preaches the Olde Tyme Religion, which is comforting for any party. 2. She allows the party to display its "Not A Racist" credentials.
Question is whether Badenoch is "membership comfort zone" enough to force the members to snap out of it, or whether they will go for someone even more self indulgent next time. Is she Hague/EdM, or is she IDS/Corbyn?
No, JRM would be the Tory Corbyn if he got back in parliament next time
Can't do what? Make the odd witty comment at PMQs that the small percentage who really pay attention to politics might appreciate? Devise policies that will never be implemented? Watch helplessly as an overwhelming majority means that the government can do whatever it likes however irrational or self harming and all your work and smart comments are to no avail?
Worrying about who the next Tory leader is shows that you haven't come to terms with what happened last month. They are irrelevant and will be for 10 years now. That is the price of complete failure.
Given the Labour government is already on a -26% rating with Yougov this is clearly not 1997 when Blair's government had a long honeymoon, so any new Tory leader has a better environment than Hague faced, even if slightly less seats to start on
True, but the current Tories are shite. They have more to fear from the nutters in Reform than Labour do from them.
On current polling Reform are taking more Labour 2024 voters than Tory 2024 voters
Yes but quite a lot of the Labour 2024 voters were Tory 2019 voters. The loss of further seats to the right remains a real and present danger to a seriously damaged Tory party.
"Carrie Johnson has returned to the political frontline. The former Tory PM’s wife is assisting Robert Jenrick in his bid for the Tory leadership. ‘Carrie is helping Rob,’ a Jenrick ally informed me. ‘She’s making calls for him.’ "
Will Boris Johnson step in as kingmaker or queenmaker for the Tories?
Dan Hodges in Mail
If Carrie is backing Jenrick that will certainly be with Boris' blessing, suggesting Jenrick is the anointed one from Johnson Mansion.
If it was just down to Conservative members then Badenoch would likely won. However I think a Jenrick and Tugendhat final 2 is the likeliest outcome amongst Tory MPs who would then be submitted to party members
I simply don't understand why Tory members seem to like Badenoch so much. She's not done or said anything of great merit so far as I can see. The same was true with Truss. I think the Tory party should have a bit of a look at their membership - they must be Labour voters or Russian influencers on their second chance have been booted from PB.
1. She preaches the Olde Tyme Religion, which is comforting for any party. 2. She allows the party to display its "Not A Racist" credentials.
Question is whether Badenoch is "membership comfort zone" enough to force the members to snap out of it, or whether they will go for someone even more self indulgent next time. Is she Hague/EdM, or is she IDS/Corbyn?
It's also to do with hyperengagement I think. By definition party members are far more engaged in politics than those who aren't. She talks that language on the issues party members care disproportionally about.
My grandmother loved two politicians in her entire life. FDR and RFK.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
Strange thing is the incoming Chief Minister, Finocchiaro was at one point the member for Drysdale but with the CLP looking likely to be heavily defeated in 2016, she switched to the safe CLP seat of Spillett which she held comfortably as one of only two CLP survivors from that landslide.
The Drysdale seat was won for Labor by one Eva Lawler who in 2022 became Chief Minister and in this election lost Drysdale to the CLP party led by Finocchaiaro.
Can't do what? Make the odd witty comment at PMQs that the small percentage who really pay attention to politics might appreciate? Devise policies that will never be implemented? Watch helplessly as an overwhelming majority means that the government can do whatever it likes however irrational or self harming and all your work and smart comments are to no avail?
Worrying about who the next Tory leader is shows that you haven't come to terms with what happened last month. They are irrelevant and will be for 10 years now. That is the price of complete failure.
Given the Labour government is already on a -26% rating with Yougov this is clearly not 1997 when Blair's government had a long honeymoon, so any new Tory leader has a better environment than Hague faced, even if slightly less seats to start on
True, but the current Tories are shite. They have more to fear from the nutters in Reform than Labour do from them.
On current polling Reform are taking more Labour 2024 voters than Tory 2024 voters
Yes but quite a lot of the Labour 2024 voters were Tory 2019 voters. The loss of further seats to the right remains a real and present danger to a seriously damaged Tory party.
27 of the top 50 Reform target seats are held by Labour, not the Tories.
SNP 41 Labour 40 Con 18 LDs 8 Greens 10 Alba 4 Reform 8
Not enough seats for another SNP and Green majority on those numbers, even if Alba backed them.
Not enough seats for a Labour and LD majority either. So Scottish Conservatives would hold the balance of power even with fewer seats, not impossible they could offer to keep Swinney in power in return for a commitment to abandon any indyref2 push. In 2007 the SCons kept a minority Salmond government in power of course
Not so long ago, you were playing the anti-independence tune and suggesting the Scottish Conservatives should support a minority Labour or Lab/LD coalition in order to maintain a Unionist majority ar Holyrood.
Can't do what? Make the odd witty comment at PMQs that the small percentage who really pay attention to politics might appreciate? Devise policies that will never be implemented? Watch helplessly as an overwhelming majority means that the government can do whatever it likes however irrational or self harming and all your work and smart comments are to no avail?
Worrying about who the next Tory leader is shows that you haven't come to terms with what happened last month. They are irrelevant and will be for 10 years now. That is the price of complete failure.
Given the Labour government is already on a -26% rating with Yougov this is clearly not 1997 when Blair's government had a long honeymoon, so any new Tory leader has a better environment than Hague faced, even if slightly less seats to start on
True, but the current Tories are shite. They have more to fear from the nutters in Reform than Labour do from them.
On current polling Reform are taking more Labour 2024 voters than Tory 2024 voters
Also, there are 89 current Labour seats where Reform were second last time.
The YouGov poll has had an impact on punters – politicalbetting.com
Comments
Though she might be the sort of personality where the less we see of her, the more popular she is.
I need to have words with Betdata.io
It is their charts, I pay £48 a month so I can get these graphs for PB and they still cannot show Mel Stride on the graphs.
Fuel duty means that those who can afford a nice electric vehicle to get about are exempt from paying the tax.
Those who get subsidised trains to get to well paying jobs are not only exempt from the tax but getting subsidised to get to work.
Those who can't afford an EV but can afford a hybrid pay some tax, but not as much.
While those who can only afford an old banger and need it to get to work are paying the most.
Completely regressive.
My logic has been she is too abrasive to make it to the final two.
I don't know what enough is, but you and @Casino_Royale and @FrancisUrquhart are all falling into he same trap of thinking it is expensive. For all the issues of moving over to UBI the one thing that isn't an issue is cost (as @Eabhal points out) because you design it to be financially neutral
And in case you think I am relying on cost savings from the DWP I am not. Useful as that is it is a pittance compared to the cost of the UBI.
But all you are doing is rearranging the tax system. You eliminate Personal Allowance because that isn't needed anymore. You eliminate Benefits because they aren't needed anymore. So that has made up a chunk of your costs. You are now however almost certainly still in deficit so you introduce a more progressive tax system. Now people aren't keen on paying higher rates of tax but you have just given them a whole lot of free cash in the UBI to clawback where relevant. As much as possible you set up the rates and thresholds so that people are more or less in the same position as they were before (there will obviously be winners and losers). Hopefully the winners will be those who previously didn't claim benefits or were struggling on them. The losers may be those who played the system. Hopefully the saving in admin may make everyone, particularly those at the poorer end just a little better off.
Its not over yet either. A couple of wickets and it would be game on again.
It benefits PB and one of the many things OGH taught me was that a good graph/image can have more of an impact than writing a few hundred words.
However I am open on being convinced otherwise.
The thing I like about UBI as it does eliminate so many of the cracks people fall through that cause poverty and unfairness in the benefits/tax system. The tax/benefits graph should be either a straight line graph (like you prefer) or a curve (like I prefer). It should not be one with lots of steps going up and down, which I think we both agree on.
I wish I could see her reaction to RFK's son and namesake--and let's be honest, the most authentic to his dad's legacy--endorsing the people's president, Donald J. Trump.
Historic.
https://x.com/JDVance/status/1827361108220342559
Trump on RFK in April: "Totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the Green New Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet…I'd even take Biden over Junior."
Trump today: "He’s a great guy, respected by everybody."
https://x.com/peterbakernyt/status/1827076111945064958
One month ago, RFK Jr said that JD Vance was owned by the CIA and Military Industrial Complex.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1827150754143989803
Clowns.
Ideally we would replace all motoring taxation with something that actually targets that what harms the economy and society - parking and short journeys inside urban areas, air pollution, carbon emissions, heavy vehicles chewing up the roads, dangerous vehicles that cause serious injuries and fatalities.
Driving a small hatchback in the north of Scotland should be much, much cheaper, and that this would benefit me massively has not influenced my thinking on this at all
Clowns are funny, hard working and usually intelligent.
Worrying about who the next Tory leader is shows that you haven't come to terms with what happened last month. They are irrelevant and will be for 10 years now. That is the price of complete failure.
England drowning.
It would effectively act as a tax on London living, and a subsidy for Hartlepool living. People would move from London to Hartlepool, which would help rebalance the country somewhat.
Critics included.
If anybody was to call Big Brother "SirCrasherooniSnoozefest" they'd soon lose their newspaper column. In fact they'd be damned lucky to avoid Room101.
🚨 EARLY PAYOUT 🚨
⚽ After today's hammering, we thought we'd save everyone the bother of waiting...
⏳ So, we've paid out early on EVERTON TO BE RELEGATED!
SINGLES & MULTIPLES. ONLINE & RETAIL. NO MAX STAKE. Settlements will be processed shortly.
🔞 18+ BeGambleAware
https://x.com/paddypower/status/1827381983346889117
Please England, do not take him away from us again and mess him about the way you did before.
It isn't hard.
James Carville: "Ask Trump one question; There's a referendum in Florida on the six-week abortion ban. How are you going to vote on it? Just tell us."
https://x.com/BlueATLGeorgia/status/1827366623579095369
No eye deer.
KB gives the impression of being the sort of candidate who will insist on putting every voter straight, no matter the cost. That's not a winning strategy.
What the Conservatives really need is another Michael Howard. Someone prepared to be LotO whilst knowing that they're vanishingly unlikely to become PM, but that they could prepare the way for their successor.
Do any of the current batch have the self-awareness to do that, and the necessary dishonesty to present themselves as a PM in waiting anyway? I don't know, but Cleverly might come closest.
This grifters’ alliance will not end well.
Trump on RFK Jr: “He’s not really an anti-vaxxer...RFK’s views on vaccines are fake, as is everything else about his candidacy.” (May 2024)
https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/1827064177892192691
Thankfully it looks like arrests have been made already.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg2k0zzdx8o
Early days... but so far I *love* it.
bullshitoutlier on any poll that shows Reform winning 8 seats at Holyrood.Anas Sarwar is set to return Labour to power at Holyrood for the first time in 19 years after a close-fought Scottish election that would herald the political rebirth of Alex Salmond, according to a new poll.
In an unprecedented scenario, the SNP would narrowly win the most seats in 2026 to become Scotland’s largest party. But it would fail to secure sufficient support to form a government. This would be the closest result since 2007, when Salmond’s SNP defeated Labour, led by Jack McConnell, by one seat.
Unionist parties would almost certainly block the SNP’s route to Bute House, the first minister’s official residence, with an informal alliance that would position Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, as first minister of a minority administration.
It would mean that, for the first time since devolution, the biggest party at Holyrood might not form the government.
Heaping further misery upon SNP prospects, Salmond would make a dramatic return to the Scottish parliament with his Alba Party winning four seats.
The Unionist configuration of Holyrood would also be upended by the emergence of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, which would win eight MSPs — mostly at the expense of the Scottish Conservatives whose representation would almost halve to 18.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/snp-scotland-poll-labour-john-swinney-anas-sarwar-rt622v9t8
SNP 41
Labour 40
Con 18
LDs 8
Greens 10
Alba 4
Reform 8
SNP 33%
Lab 30%
Con 12%
Reform 9%
LD 5%
Green; and others picking up 2%
List
SNP 28%
Lab 28%
Con 14%
Reform 9%
Greens 8%
LD 7%
Alba 5%
The few crude betting bots I built used betangel to populate excel with live odds, but that was some time ago. Simple excel formula can record odds from that, for much less than £48/mo
I'd assumed things had moved on with the api stuff. Maybe betfair are being dickheads limiting/charging extortionate amounts for their requests these days?
I think it is Betfair being rotters with their charges.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rxyz1p830o
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/aug/24/country-liberals-clinch-victory-in-northern-territory-election
….weird.
Still no eye deer.
(Apols if 20 others have posted that; he deserves it.)
Let's stay off elephants and cherry trees.
What’s eminently clear from the convention is that the Democrats are united.
DJT just chucked his VP under the bus. I doubt it will get better for them from here.
The 38-year-old reportedly gained access to a flat in the Italian capital's Prati district via the balcony but became distracted after picking up a book about Homer's Iliad on a bedside table.
The 71-year-old homeowner is said to have awoken and confronted the alleged thief, who was engrossed in the book.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg4kpv3p4zo
The tail of the diplodocus is on show.
Still no fucking eye deer.
OMG. The teleprompter at the Trump rally was telling Kari Lake to get off the stage
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1827331187288797584
Funny story, though. The first time Bill Clinton spoke at the DNC (in 1988), he was so long winded, the last half of his speech got choruses of boos.
The loudest cheers of the night came when he got to “In conclusion…”
Will Boris Johnson step in as kingmaker or queenmaker for the Tories?
Dan Hodges in Mail
Not enough seats for a Labour and LD majority either. So Scottish Conservatives would hold the balance of power even with fewer seats, not impossible they could offer to keep Swinney in power in return for a commitment to abandon any indyref2 push. In 2007 the SCons kept a minority Salmond government in power of course
2. She allows the party to display its "Not A Racist" credentials.
Question is whether Badenoch is "membership comfort zone" enough to force the members to snap out of it, or whether they will go for someone even more self indulgent next time. Is she Hague/EdM, or is she IDS/Corbyn?
Boris did do a video endorsement for Jenrick at the general election in Newark
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1808203735979483172
The Drysdale seat was won for Labor by one Eva Lawler who in 2022 became Chief Minister and in this election lost Drysdale to the CLP party led by Finocchaiaro.
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk#google_vignette
Reform are more of a threat to Labour now in the redwall and marginal working class Leave seats.
The Tories face more of a threat from the LDs given 39 of the top 50 LD target seats are Tory held, most of them in middle class southern seats
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat