Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
What it mostly does is stop most families having to get involved in arranging trusts and other legal nonsense so that both spouses can use their allowance without impoverishing each other.
Annoyingly my family didn't bother with this thanks to the original change but as we know, what the government can give, it can also take away.
A lucky charity may gain an extra 325k if this is retrospective. The treasury can whistle (unless they also tax charitable legacies, which would cause much fun).
All I see here is scaremongering up to the point things are announced in October..
On topic, well, at least that's different to the mid noughties when we never heard the end of 'you're all the same'.
Lowest turnout since 2001 when it was guaranteed that Blair would win massively. That alone back up "you're all the same" and I certainly heard it on the doorstep.
I think there is a deep-fuelled cynicism about politics and politicians, fuelled by the Faragista alt-right AND the Corbynista alt-left which is going to be very hard to shift. Harder still the longer that Osbornomics rules the economic roost...
Interesting view, because a lot of people say it's the boring centrists who are responsible for those feelings about politics. (Not my opinion btw).
Why is that not your opinion? It seems pretty obvious to me that complaints about politicians 'being all the same' are because they are all the same. Labour, Tory, or Lib Dem, they pretty much shed their skin upon the first whiff of power and pursue the same agenda. There's always a 'good reason' to be 'realistic' but the public knows it stinks, and is not in the national interest. And the same people always blame 'the extreme' parties for unsettling the plebs, as if they should shut up about migration going through the roof and then nobody would worry their pretty heads about it.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
But wouldn't a smart person just use the individual allowances separately and split the estate in two so they can benefit from 2 lots of £325k? The owners become tenants in common with a 50% share of the property and the other assets are split up before death, then when one person dies their 50% property share is passed on to their descendants along with their other assets using the £325k and then on the second death the other 50% is passed to their descendants using the other £325k. All you'd end up with is kids owning 50% of their mum or dad's house for a few years rather than it transferring to the spouse then to the kids.
Worst case scenario is that you might end up with a lot of late in life divorces if families are limited to one £325k allowance.
A change would effectively be retrospective (to 2006? or thereabouts) though, if one spouse has already died without making any such provision.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
What it mostly does is stop most families having to get involved in arranging trusts and other legal nonsense so that both spouses can use their allowance without impoverishing each other.
Annoyingly my family didn't bother with this thanks to the original change but as we know, what the government can give, it can also take away.
A lucky charity may gain an extra 325k if this is retrospective. The treasury can whistle (unless they also tax charitable legacies, which would cause much fun).
I believe that the "no IHT on charitable donations" only applies up to 10% of the value of an estate. I think.
I thought that you reduce the IHT rate if you donate over 10%, but any amount left to a charity is not itself taxable? I could be wrong...
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
What it mostly does is stop most families having to get involved in arranging trusts and other legal nonsense so that both spouses can use their allowance without impoverishing each other.
Annoyingly my family didn't bother with this thanks to the original change but as we know, what the government can give, it can also take away.
A lucky charity may gain an extra 325k if this is retrospective. The treasury can whistle (unless they also tax charitable legacies, which would cause much fun).
All I see here is scaremongering up to the point things are announced in October..
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group where such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group were such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
I remember an old wives tale about hairspray and number plates. Never understood how that would work though. Was maybe when speed cameras all had flash photography?
As Gus Atkinson starred for England, driver who killed his mother was jailed after extradition fight
Exclusive investigation: Former Eastenders actor Youssef Berouain has been sentenced to eight years for car crash that killed Caroline
On the day Gus Atkinson was celebrating four for 67 against West Indies at Edgbaston on July 26, one of many thrilling performances in his meteoric rise this summer, 120 miles south at Southwark Crown Court the man responsible for the death of his mother was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years imprisonment.
It was the end of a four-year legal fight to bring to justice actor Youssef Berouain, whose credits include parts in EastEnders, Doctors and the 9/11 mini series The Looming Tower.
A Telegraph Sport investigation can now reveal the full details of the case which started on a street in Fulham when a car driven by Berouain was involved in an accident that killed Caroline Atkinson, a 55-year-old mother of three, on Dec 10, 2020.
Police alleged Berouain was driving at double the speed limit in a 30mph zone, officers at the scene said they could smell cannabis on his person and he was acting erratically before refusing to undergo roadside testing.
But the story does not end on the streets of Fulham on a wet night in the lead up to Christmas four years ago. The actions of Berouain would lead to a long legal fight, because he flew to Dubai soon after to cover up his eventual destination, the United States. It then took in court hearings in London and Los Angeles, requiring the intervention of United States Marshals and officials at the British Embassy in Washington invoking the United States-United Kingdom extradition treaty to bring him in front of Southwark Crown Court.
He pleaded guilty on June 14. Two weeks later Atkinson was named in the first Test squad of the summer while the family awaited the sentencing. Six weeks later Berouain was jailed, by which time Atkinson had made an astonishing start to his Test
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
What it mostly does is stop most families having to get involved in arranging trusts and other legal nonsense so that both spouses can use their allowance without impoverishing each other.
Annoyingly my family didn't bother with this thanks to the original change but as we know, what the government can give, it can also take away.
A lucky charity may gain an extra 325k if this is retrospective. The treasury can whistle (unless they also tax charitable legacies, which would cause much fun).
All I see here is scaremongering up to the point things are announced in October..
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group were such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
Wait. You mean you don't pass those speed cameras fast enough to make your plates unrecognisable in any case?
The thing that stands out to me is how RefUK voters seem to think differently. The small 27% that think Con and RefUK are similar is one. Also the high 15% that think Con and Green are very similar.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
A - That I think would make sense. But there is the "four year countback" provision they will have to think about. B - Likely. With immediate application ie from midnight tonight? C - They have to navigate the "no income tax increases" promise. How? My take was roll it in with removing cliff-edges. D - Possible as discussed. What about the transferable married couples tax allowance, which I think was reintroduced in some form. Politically, this is a contrast with the marriage, gay and trans obsessed parts of the Conservative Right - which is a theme of National Conservatism aiui.
I'd make it 50p from £100,000k but get rid of the utterly stupid, ludicrous, moronic attack on the PA at £100,001. And yes, I do have skin in this game. The admin is awful never mind anything else: and it creates a huge disincentive to make (and spend) the income, which is a barrier to growth. This could be a masterstroke from Rachel if she dares.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
What it mostly does is stop most families having to get involved in arranging trusts and other legal nonsense so that both spouses can use their allowance without impoverishing each other.
Annoyingly my family didn't bother with this thanks to the original change but as we know, what the government can give, it can also take away.
A lucky charity may gain an extra 325k if this is retrospective. The treasury can whistle (unless they also tax charitable legacies, which would cause much fun).
I believe that the "no IHT on charitable donations" only applies up to 10% of the value of an estate. I think.
I thought that you reduce the IHT rate if you donate over 10%, but any amount left to a charity is not itself taxable? I could be wrong...
I'm not sure; I noticed something in passing when we were dealing with mum's estate.
As Gus Atkinson starred for England, driver who killed his mother was jailed after extradition fight
Exclusive investigation: Former Eastenders actor Youssef Berouain has been sentenced to eight years for car crash that killed Caroline
On the day Gus Atkinson was celebrating four for 67 against West Indies at Edgbaston on July 26, one of many thrilling performances in his meteoric rise this summer, 120 miles south at Southwark Crown Court the man responsible for the death of his mother was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years imprisonment.
It was the end of a four-year legal fight to bring to justice actor Youssef Berouain, whose credits include parts in EastEnders, Doctors and the 9/11 mini series The Looming Tower.
A Telegraph Sport investigation can now reveal the full details of the case which started on a street in Fulham when a car driven by Berouain was involved in an accident that killed Caroline Atkinson, a 55-year-old mother of three, on Dec 10, 2020.
Police alleged Berouain was driving at double the speed limit in a 30mph zone, officers at the scene said they could smell cannabis on his person and he was acting erratically before refusing to undergo roadside testing.
But the story does not end on the streets of Fulham on a wet night in the lead up to Christmas four years ago. The actions of Berouain would lead to a long legal fight, because he flew to Dubai soon after to cover up his eventual destination, the United States. It then took in court hearings in London and Los Angeles, requiring the intervention of United States Marshals and officials at the British Embassy in Washington invoking the United States-United Kingdom extradition treaty to bring him in front of Southwark Crown Court.
He pleaded guilty on June 14. Two weeks later Atkinson was named in the first Test squad of the summer while the family awaited the sentencing. Six weeks later Berouain was jailed, by which time Atkinson had made an astonishing start to his Test
Andrew Mitchell indicating that the Government threshold for stopping arms sales to Israel has not been met. The Conservative Government would not have suspended the contracts
National Treasure Sir Boris Johnson on the other hand is, like Barty Bobbins, incandescent with rage.
I wonder if a latter day Peter Wright launched a successful coup against the Starmer Government would Boris Johnson take on the role as titular Prime Minister?
Speaking of Boris, he lured me into the Mail's introductory £1.99 a month trial rate which I pay specifically in order to read the great man's thoughts.
I'm thinking of demanding my £2 back because PB's own @Leon writes with more style and greater political insight, even when he's just reflecting American alt-right TwiX. Boris is just phoning it in.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
What it mostly does is stop most families having to get involved in arranging trusts and other legal nonsense so that both spouses can use their allowance without impoverishing each other.
Annoyingly my family didn't bother with this thanks to the original change but as we know, what the government can give, it can also take away.
A lucky charity may gain an extra 325k if this is retrospective. The treasury can whistle (unless they also tax charitable legacies, which would cause much fun).
All I see here is scaremongering up to the point things are announced in October..
Nunu's dedication to the cause of gagging Twix is highly suspect - I think that his posts on this are precisely to expound this theory by claiming to tut-tut it. It's you who is helping him do this not me. I hadn't even heard of it before I heard it on here.
So, on first hearing about the far right spreading conspiracy theories, your instinct was to go, "Hmmm, maybe those far right groups are right about those conspiracy theories"?
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
What it mostly does is stop most families having to get involved in arranging trusts and other legal nonsense so that both spouses can use their allowance without impoverishing each other.
Annoyingly my family didn't bother with this thanks to the original change but as we know, what the government can give, it can also take away.
A lucky charity may gain an extra 325k if this is retrospective. The treasury can whistle (unless they also tax charitable legacies, which would cause much fun).
I believe that the "no IHT on charitable donations" only applies up to 10% of the value of an estate. I think.
I thought that you reduce the IHT rate if you donate over 10%, but any amount left to a charity is not itself taxable? I could be wrong...
I'm not sure; I noticed something in passing when we were dealing with mum's estate.
Yes, it reduces to 36%. And no charitable bequest attracts IHT, it reduces anyway the value of the total estate for IHT calculation purposes.
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group were such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
I remember an old wives tale about hairspray and number plates. Never understood how that would work though. Was maybe when speed cameras all had flash photography?
Think they tested that on one the old driving shows (Fifth Gear maybe?) and it didn't work.
Nunu's dedication to the cause of gagging Twix is highly suspect - I think that his posts on this are precisely to expound this theory by claiming to tut-tut it. It's you who is helping him do this not me. I hadn't even heard of it before I heard it on here.
So, on first hearing about the far right spreading conspiracy theories, your instinct was to go, "Hmmm, maybe those far right groups are right about those conspiracy theories"?
I'm open to the idea of an organised attack on Christian places of worship, yes. Christians are a hugely persecuted group worldwide, and this goes massively underreported because as a cause it's deeply unfashionable.
I can't help suspecting the GOP money men had it in mind to replace Trump with JD Vance if the former wasn't cutting it, as he isn't, but JD Vance has proved even more unpopular so even less likely to deliver Project 2025, subsection C, tax cuts for billionaires.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
!Snip! In essence, a surviving spouse would have to pay 40% IHT on anything they inherited over £325,000. There would probably be the option of granting HMRC a charge over the matrimonial home, payable upon the death of the second spouse.
I can't believe that Labour would be stupid enough to go for that, though.
How does it work currently for an unmarried couple that own a house jointly, & a married one for that matter both with and without children.
I was thinking that. About 95% ofmy assets are formally jointly owned with my wife, and in practice the rest of it - like my car - is de facto jointly owned. Either of us has access to all of it. If I died there wouldn't be any need for anything complicated - it's all basically hers already.
As above, is this not about carrying an allowance over?
At the moment if you leave everything to your spouse, none of your allowance is used. Indeed, this is one of the few benefits of being married.
That allowance is currently carried over, so when your spouse dies and (potentially) your children inherit, the £325k allowance that you did not use is added to their £325k allowance to make it £650k.
Dropping this wouldn't mean IHT between spouses but an extra £130k bill to the children.
Family Trusts all round.
I see. One of those times when there is a benefit I didn't know I had until it got taken away.
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group were such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
Wait. You mean you don't pass those speed cameras fast enough to make your plates unrecognisable in any case?
The frame rate of most speed cameras is 15fps so even at 120mph the car will only move 3.5m during the frame. As the cameras attack from behind like Chris Pincher MP that's still enough to get a good reading.
Good ECM and SIGINT is the key. Don't leave home without your Uniden R8. The power density of a pulse doppler radar signal is inversely proportional to the second power of the range. So you can detect a radar at four times the distance it can be used to usefully calculate speed. Probably more in practice due to atmospheric and reflective losses.
You lot might think you know something about speeding, but this is a full time fucking job for me. Behave yourselves.
The thing that stands out to me is how RefUK voters seem to think differently. The small 27% that think Con and RefUK are similar is one. Also the high 15% that think Con and Green are very similar.
Two interesting things arise.
Firstly, in fact, whatever the perceptions, Lab, Con and LD occupy a minute Overton window WRT all the big expenditure items, mostly relying on the narcissism of small differences to argue over - like should we sell weapons grade paperclips to Israel.
For most voters most of the time the big issue is not principle but competence in every aspect of civil and state funded management, from pot holes to hernias and dentists. If Labour forget this their regime will be troubled. It outweighs every other issue by miles.
Secondly the one manifesto in 2024 which was interesting was Reform:
not because I agree with it, I don't, but it was well outside the Overton window. It was actually different.
The Tories face an interesting choice. Competence remains the most important issue of all, no change there; but IMHO they have to choose between presenting a competent front to a 'like all the others' set of policies, or, if they chose, they could look at the Reform agenda, produce a properly costed version of a real alternative (Reform's costings are a joke) and await events.
Andrew Mitchell indicating that the Government threshold for stopping arms sales to Israel has not been met. The Conservative Government would not have suspended the contracts
National Treasure Sir Boris Johnson on the other hand is, like Barty Bobbins, incandescent with rage.
I wonder if a latter day Peter Wright launched a successful coup against the Starmer Government would Boris Johnson take on the role as titular Prime Minister?
Speaking of Boris, he lured me into the Mail's introductory £1.99 a month trial rate which I pay specifically in order to read the great man's thoughts.
I'm thinking of demanding my £2 back because PB's own @Leon writes with more style and greater political insight, even when he's just reflecting American alt-right TwiX. Boris is just phoning it in.
Oof! "@Leon writes with more style and greater political insight" is a hammer blow to Lord Johnson of Hartlepool's reputation as the nation's favourite comedic social commentator!
On topic, well, at least that's different to the mid noughties when we never heard the end of 'you're all the same'.
Lowest turnout since 2001 when it was guaranteed that Blair would win massively. That alone back up "you're all the same" and I certainly heard it on the doorstep.
I think there is a deep-fuelled cynicism about politics and politicians, fuelled by the Faragista alt-right AND the Corbynista alt-left which is going to be very hard to shift. Harder still the longer that Osbornomics rules the economic roost...
Interesting view, because a lot of people say it's the boring centrists who are responsible for those feelings about politics. (Not my opinion btw).
Why is that not your opinion? It seems pretty obvious to me that complaints about politicians 'being all the same' are because they are all the same. Labour, Tory, or Lib Dem, they pretty much shed their skin upon the first whiff of power and pursue the same agenda. There's always a 'good reason' to be 'realistic' but the public knows it stinks, and is not in the national interest. And the same people always blame 'the extreme' parties for unsettling the plebs, as if they should shut up about migration going through the roof and then nobody would worry their pretty heads about it.
That's not how politics works.
In Opposition, the idea is to get back into power and in essence (and fact), Opposition party leaders will do and say whatever they need in order to win and that includes seemingly radical ideas.
Once in office and up against the cold hard wall of reality, they recognise the room for manoeuvre which exists in Opposition doesn't exist in Government. You might argue (and you'd probably be right) the days of any western Government opting for a significantly different economic policy have gone - Truss tried it and look what happened to her. I know, as a devotee of the policy, you thought it was right - doesn't matter, more powerful and influential forces decided it was wrong.
There's a window in which modern social democratic (let's not kid ourselves, Roy Jenkins won in the end) western Governments operate and you can't move too far from it. Britain's problem remains our obsession with American tax rates and European levels of public services and that's a circle which simply can't be squared.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group were such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
I remember an old wives tale about hairspray and number plates. Never understood how that would work though. Was maybe when speed cameras all had flash photography?
Think they tested that on one the old driving shows (Fifth Gear maybe?) and it didn't work.
Older cameras, as were used in the 90s and 00s, allegedly had relatively poor CCD response at shorter wavelengths. So in countries were you could get different coloured plates, blue ones suddenly became very much in vogue.
I question whether the American middle-class (which seems to be what they call their working class) has got much richer over that timescale.
To the extent it is true, probably AI, social media and tech is boosting incomes & salaries at the high-end - plus government borrowing - which is lifting their overall nominal GDP per head.
Indeed, in terms of median wealth per head the UK on $151,825 a head is actually higher than the US on $107,739 per head. Even if on mean wealth per head the US on $551,347 per head is higher than the UK on $302,783 a head
(The US middle class basically covers what we would call the lower middle class and working class and indeed even some of the upper middle class, it basically covers most Americans except the super rich and underclass and those on welfare or homeless)
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
But wouldn't a smart person just use the individual allowances separately and split the estate in two so they can benefit from 2 lots of £325k? The owners become tenants in common with a 50% share of the property and the other assets are split up before death, then when one person dies their 50% property share is passed on to their descendants along with their other assets using the £325k and then on the second death the other 50% is passed to their descendants using the other £325k. All you'd end up with is kids owning 50% of their mum or dad's house for a few years rather than it transferring to the spouse then to the kids.
Worst case scenario is that you might end up with a lot of late in life divorces if families are limited to one £325k allowance.
Yes basically. See @Flatlander post above to get around it (when you needed to). We did this. Since the creation of the allowance we changed our wills back to normal as we don't need to do it now. So yes it is easy to get around but even more so for the reasons @hyufd gives it would be incredibly unpopular to remove the allowance so I don't see Labour doing it.
However me predicting they won't change Osborne's give away should be a prompt for everyone to back them doing it.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
Some surprising numbers for Trump, 31% of Londoners & 20% of Labour voters?
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
Some surprising numbers for Trump, 31% of Londoners & 20% of Labour voters?
Andrew Mitchell indicating that the Government threshold for stopping arms sales to Israel has not been met. The Conservative Government would not have suspended the contracts
National Treasure Sir Boris Johnson on the other hand is, like Barty Bobbins, incandescent with rage.
I wonder if a latter day Peter Wright launched a successful coup against the Starmer Government would Boris Johnson take on the role as titular Prime Minister?
Speaking of Boris, he lured me into the Mail's introductory £1.99 a month trial rate which I pay specifically in order to read the great man's thoughts.
I'm thinking of demanding my £2 back because PB's own @Leon writes with more style and greater political insight, even when he's just reflecting American alt-right TwiX. Boris is just phoning it in.
Oof! "@Leon writes with more style and greater political insight" is a hammer blow to Lord Johnson of Hartlepool's reputation as the nation's favourite comedic social commentator!
He's definitely funnier than Boris, and seems to put considerably more effort into his work. And is unlikely ever to lead the Tory party.
As Gus Atkinson starred for England, driver who killed his mother was jailed after extradition fight
Exclusive investigation: Former Eastenders actor Youssef Berouain has been sentenced to eight years for car crash that killed Caroline
On the day Gus Atkinson was celebrating four for 67 against West Indies at Edgbaston on July 26, one of many thrilling performances in his meteoric rise this summer, 120 miles south at Southwark Crown Court the man responsible for the death of his mother was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years imprisonment.
It was the end of a four-year legal fight to bring to justice actor Youssef Berouain, whose credits include parts in EastEnders, Doctors and the 9/11 mini series The Looming Tower.
A Telegraph Sport investigation can now reveal the full details of the case which started on a street in Fulham when a car driven by Berouain was involved in an accident that killed Caroline Atkinson, a 55-year-old mother of three, on Dec 10, 2020.
Police alleged Berouain was driving at double the speed limit in a 30mph zone, officers at the scene said they could smell cannabis on his person and he was acting erratically before refusing to undergo roadside testing.
But the story does not end on the streets of Fulham on a wet night in the lead up to Christmas four years ago. The actions of Berouain would lead to a long legal fight, because he flew to Dubai soon after to cover up his eventual destination, the United States. It then took in court hearings in London and Los Angeles, requiring the intervention of United States Marshals and officials at the British Embassy in Washington invoking the United States-United Kingdom extradition treaty to bring him in front of Southwark Crown Court.
He pleaded guilty on June 14. Two weeks later Atkinson was named in the first Test squad of the summer while the family awaited the sentencing. Six weeks later Berouain was jailed, by which time Atkinson had made an astonishing start to his Test
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
A - That I think would make sense. But there is the "four year countback" provision they will have to think about. B - Likely. With immediate application ie from midnight tonight? C - They have to navigate the "no income tax increases" promise. How? My take was roll it in with removing cliff-edges. D - Possible as discussed. What about the transferable married couples tax allowance, which I think was reintroduced in some form. Politically, this is a contrast with the marriage, gay and trans obsessed parts of the Conservative Right - which is a theme of National Conservatism aiui.
Although I would lose by it, I very much like your C suggestion.
Nunu's dedication to the cause of gagging Twix is highly suspect - I think that his posts on this are precisely to expound this theory by claiming to tut-tut it. It's you who is helping him do this not me. I hadn't even heard of it before I heard it on here.
So, on first hearing about the far right spreading conspiracy theories, your instinct was to go, "Hmmm, maybe those far right groups are right about those conspiracy theories"?
I'm open to the idea of an organised attack on Christian places of worship, yes. Christians are a hugely persecuted group worldwide, and this goes massively underreported because as a cause it's deeply unfashionable.
There are definitely a lot of arson attacks on black churches in the US, and deaths too. I guess that is what you are talking about?
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
58% of Reform voters back Trump over Harris then but only 23% of Tory voters do. Tory voters not much more likely to back Trump than the 20% of Labour voters and 16% of LDs who do.
Farage is correct to back Trump based on his voter base but the other UK party leaders should keep their distance and retain links to Harris
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
But wouldn't a smart person just use the individual allowances separately and split the estate in two so they can benefit from 2 lots of £325k? The owners become tenants in common with a 50% share of the property and the other assets are split up before death, then when one person dies their 50% property share is passed on to their descendants along with their other assets using the £325k and then on the second death the other 50% is passed to their descendants using the other £325k. All you'd end up with is kids owning 50% of their mum or dad's house for a few years rather than it transferring to the spouse then to the kids.
Worst case scenario is that you might end up with a lot of late in life divorces if families are limited to one £325k allowance.
A change would effectively be retrospective (to 2006? or thereabouts) though, if one spouse has already died without making any such provision.
Why wouldn't the beneficiaries just use a deed of variation?
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
Some surprising numbers for Trump, 31% of Londoners & 20% of Labour voters?
Nunu's dedication to the cause of gagging Twix is highly suspect - I think that his posts on this are precisely to expound this theory by claiming to tut-tut it. It's you who is helping him do this not me. I hadn't even heard of it before I heard it on here.
So, on first hearing about the far right spreading conspiracy theories, your instinct was to go, "Hmmm, maybe those far right groups are right about those conspiracy theories"?
I'm open to the idea of an organised attack on Christian places of worship, yes...
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
Some surprising numbers for Trump, 31% of Londoners & 20% of Labour voters?
Nunu's dedication to the cause of gagging Twix is highly suspect - I think that his posts on this are precisely to expound this theory by claiming to tut-tut it. It's you who is helping him do this not me. I hadn't even heard of it before I heard it on here.
So, on first hearing about the far right spreading conspiracy theories, your instinct was to go, "Hmmm, maybe those far right groups are right about those conspiracy theories"?
Is it a conspiracy that's being alleged or just a pattern?
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
But wouldn't a smart person just use the individual allowances separately and split the estate in two so they can benefit from 2 lots of £325k? The owners become tenants in common with a 50% share of the property and the other assets are split up before death, then when one person dies their 50% property share is passed on to their descendants along with their other assets using the £325k and then on the second death the other 50% is passed to their descendants using the other £325k. All you'd end up with is kids owning 50% of their mum or dad's house for a few years rather than it transferring to the spouse then to the kids.
Worst case scenario is that you might end up with a lot of late in life divorces if families are limited to one £325k allowance.
Yes basically. See @Flatlander post above to get around it (when you needed to). We did this. Since the creation of the allowance we changed our wills back to normal as we don't need to do it now. So yes it is easy to get around but even more so for the reasons @hyufd gives it would be incredibly unpopular to remove the allowance so I don't see Labour doing it.
However me predicting they won't change Osborne's give away should be a prompt for everyone to back them doing it.
Indeed and the average voter does not want to pay all the lawyers fees to create tenant in common trusts for the family home!
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group were such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
Wait. You mean you don't pass those speed cameras fast enough to make your plates unrecognisable in any case?
The frame rate of most speed cameras is 15fps so even at 120mph the car will only move 3.5m during the frame. As the cameras attack from behind like Chris Pincher MP that's still enough to get a good reading.
Good ECM and SIGINT is the key. Don't leave home without your Uniden R8. The power density of a pulse doppler radar signal is inversely proportional to the second power of the range. So you can detect a radar at four times the distance it can be used to usefully calculate speed. Probably more in practice due to atmospheric and reflective losses.
You lot might think you know something about speeding, but this is a full time fucking job for me. Behave yourselves.
Effectiveness against average speed cameras: zero.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
A - That I think would make sense. But there is the "four year countback" provision they will have to think about. B - Likely. With immediate application ie from midnight tonight? C - They have to navigate the "no income tax increases" promise. How? My take was roll it in with removing cliff-edges. D - Possible as discussed. What about the transferable married couples tax allowance, which I think was reintroduced in some form. Politically, this is a contrast with the marriage, gay and trans obsessed parts of the Conservative Right - which is a theme of National Conservatism aiui.
I'd make it 50p from £100,000k but get rid of the utterly stupid, ludicrous, moronic attack on the PA at £100,001. And yes, I do have skin in this game. The admin is awful never mind anything else: and it creates a huge disincentive to make (and spend) the income, which is a barrier to growth. This could be a masterstroke from Rachel if she dares.
50% is a big psychological barrier for people (including me) especially with the 2% NI added in. It would mean that any income over £100k the primary beneficiary is the state rather than the person going out to do the work, 45% (47% really) is probably the upper limit but I think bringing that down to £60k and getting rid of the higher rate would also work (and removing all of the cliff edges). People on mid to high incomes would get an extra £10k at 20%, people on higher incomes would pay a bit more overall and we'd end the part time incentive at £100k.
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group were such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
Wait. You mean you don't pass those speed cameras fast enough to make your plates unrecognisable in any case?
The frame rate of most speed cameras is 15fps so even at 120mph the car will only move 3.5m during the frame. As the cameras attack from behind like Chris Pincher MP that's still enough to get a good reading.
Good ECM and SIGINT is the key. Don't leave home without your Uniden R8. The power density of a pulse doppler radar signal is inversely proportional to the second power of the range. So you can detect a radar at four times the distance it can be used to usefully calculate speed. Probably more in practice due to atmospheric and reflective losses.
You lot might think you know something about speeding, but this is a full time fucking job for me. Behave yourselves.
Effectiveness against average speed cameras: zero.
The average speed camera is geolocated, isn't it ?
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
But wouldn't a smart person just use the individual allowances separately and split the estate in two so they can benefit from 2 lots of £325k? The owners become tenants in common with a 50% share of the property and the other assets are split up before death, then when one person dies their 50% property share is passed on to their descendants along with their other assets using the £325k and then on the second death the other 50% is passed to their descendants using the other £325k. All you'd end up with is kids owning 50% of their mum or dad's house for a few years rather than it transferring to the spouse then to the kids.
Worst case scenario is that you might end up with a lot of late in life divorces if families are limited to one £325k allowance.
A change would effectively be retrospective (to 2006? or thereabouts) though, if one spouse has already died without making any such provision.
Why wouldn't the beneficiaries just use a deed of variation?
I'm not sure I understand?
If one of a married couple has already died (between 2006 and 2024) and all the money has already passed to their spouse, there's no deed to be varied.
Anyway, I'm sure the government are dropping hints of all the annoying things they might consider but aren't actually going to do whilst hiding the actual nasties in a vault somewhere.
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
The Shift in attitudes in the BSA is quite dramatic, though whether caused by Brexit or whether Brexit was a reaction to the shift in attitudes is unclear.
It does show that the "Fun with Flags" tendency is fighting for a diminishing part of the electorate, and ignoring the growing bit.
Check Nigel Farage's following on TikTok vs. how many of the younger generation are being inspired by Sir Keir, or the prat in a pond for that matter.
Following someone on Tik Tok is very obviously not the same as voting for them. Farage and figures like Johnson have big Tik Tok followings but not big support from Gen Alpha.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
I don't wish to agree with you @HYUFD on this, but I have to, you are right. Labour and the Tories competed on the give away on this and Osborne's move was inspired regarding it's popularity, even though I disagree with it. So I think you are absolutely right.
@MaxPB you are misunderstanding how it works. No widow would be forced to sell as transfers to widows are exempt from IHT. It is because of this there is no IHT. So not made homeless. But that also means there is no tax free allowance, so on transfer to the children there is only one allowance effectively on two transfers, but now the funds are from one person and not a husband and wife so effectively double the money being taxed, particularly if the deaths are close together which is often the case.
Although I don't agree with this allowance for various reasons there is some logic in it preventing this issue.
But wouldn't a smart person just use the individual allowances separately and split the estate in two so they can benefit from 2 lots of £325k? The owners become tenants in common with a 50% share of the property and the other assets are split up before death, then when one person dies their 50% property share is passed on to their descendants along with their other assets using the £325k and then on the second death the other 50% is passed to their descendants using the other £325k. All you'd end up with is kids owning 50% of their mum or dad's house for a few years rather than it transferring to the spouse then to the kids.
Worst case scenario is that you might end up with a lot of late in life divorces if families are limited to one £325k allowance.
A change would effectively be retrospective (to 2006? or thereabouts) though, if one spouse has already died without making any such provision.
Why wouldn't the beneficiaries just use a deed of variation?
I'm not sure I understand?
If one of a married couple has already died (between 2006 and 2024) and all the money has already passed to their spouse, there's no deed to be varied.
Anyway, I'm sure the government are dropping hints of all the annoying things they might consider but aren't actually going to do whilst hiding the actual nasties in a vault somewhere.
The really worrying thing is that they might be reading PB's scare-mongering / speculation about the worst they can do, and taking notes for future reference.
Casino little realises his role in Labour policy making...
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
I suspect because they're not the "voter base" as such, but probably people who either vote Lib Dem tactically because they don't like the Tories/SNP (there could be some pretty right wing anti-SNP voters in there for example) or on the basis of some old fashioned none of the above sentiment.
Still, good to see the party is the least Trumpy of the lot. But the really fascinating part of the story is the low proportion of Tory supporters who are Trumpers. Virtually the same as Labour. A clear picture emerges of that residual vote in 2024 being traditionalist small-c conservatives sticking with the party through thick and thin. BigGs in other words. Not proto-Farages.
I've heard it suggested that ANPR cameras should alert police when detecting groups of half a dozen or so motorbikes whose number plates have fallen off.
I am on a shady Telegram group were such things are discussed (of course I am) and there is a new 3d printing technique for making fake plates that is supposed to look fine to the human eye but makes it harder for the cameras to do character recognition and read the plates.
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
Wait. You mean you don't pass those speed cameras fast enough to make your plates unrecognisable in any case?
The frame rate of most speed cameras is 15fps so even at 120mph the car will only move 3.5m during the frame. As the cameras attack from behind like Chris Pincher MP that's still enough to get a good reading.
Good ECM and SIGINT is the key. Don't leave home without your Uniden R8. The power density of a pulse doppler radar signal is inversely proportional to the second power of the range. So you can detect a radar at four times the distance it can be used to usefully calculate speed. Probably more in practice due to atmospheric and reflective losses.
You lot might think you know something about speeding, but this is a full time fucking job for me. Behave yourselves.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
A - That I think would make sense. But there is the "four year countback" provision they will have to think about. B - Likely. With immediate application ie from midnight tonight? C - They have to navigate the "no income tax increases" promise. How? My take was roll it in with removing cliff-edges. D - Possible as discussed. What about the transferable married couples tax allowance, which I think was reintroduced in some form. Politically, this is a contrast with the marriage, gay and trans obsessed parts of the Conservative Right - which is a theme of National Conservatism aiui.
I'd make it 50p from £100,000k but get rid of the utterly stupid, ludicrous, moronic attack on the PA at £100,001. And yes, I do have skin in this game. The admin is awful never mind anything else: and it creates a huge disincentive to make (and spend) the income, which is a barrier to growth. This could be a masterstroke from Rachel if she dares.
I'm not against the withdrawal of the PA as you earn more as it is of greater benefit to higher earners when it is actually there for the low income people.
HOWEVER the current implementation is very crude resulting in the steps up and down in the marginal tax rates and the leap from 40% to 60% at £100,000 and then the drop later is just silly. It should be introduced earlier, but with a much, much more gradual withdrawal of the PA which ends at a new marginal tax rate when the PA is all lost.
So the marginal tax rate has the steps removed from it as much as possible and it becomes a smooth curve, thus removing the incentives to avoid going over certain tax points.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
They will be the looking for a protest vote, don't like any politcians type. You will have met them but most unlikely to ever discuss politics in any depth.
French border police report a capsized boat with upto 50 immigrants on board, with 10 deaths and the search continuing
This is unacceptable and the answer lies with the French and UK governments to agree all boat crossing will be returned to France, no matter where they are intercepted in the channel, with no need for any other deterrent
Also 5 children arrested on suspicion of the murder of an 80 year old
Every day seems to bring its own terrible news, and it is understandable why so many are depressed and anxious and even suffering mental health issues
As Gus Atkinson starred for England, driver who killed his mother was jailed after extradition fight
Exclusive investigation: Former Eastenders actor Youssef Berouain has been sentenced to eight years for car crash that killed Caroline
On the day Gus Atkinson was celebrating four for 67 against West Indies at Edgbaston on July 26, one of many thrilling performances in his meteoric rise this summer, 120 miles south at Southwark Crown Court the man responsible for the death of his mother was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years imprisonment.
It was the end of a four-year legal fight to bring to justice actor Youssef Berouain, whose credits include parts in EastEnders, Doctors and the 9/11 mini series The Looming Tower.
A Telegraph Sport investigation can now reveal the full details of the case which started on a street in Fulham when a car driven by Berouain was involved in an accident that killed Caroline Atkinson, a 55-year-old mother of three, on Dec 10, 2020.
Police alleged Berouain was driving at double the speed limit in a 30mph zone, officers at the scene said they could smell cannabis on his person and he was acting erratically before refusing to undergo roadside testing.
But the story does not end on the streets of Fulham on a wet night in the lead up to Christmas four years ago. The actions of Berouain would lead to a long legal fight, because he flew to Dubai soon after to cover up his eventual destination, the United States. It then took in court hearings in London and Los Angeles, requiring the intervention of United States Marshals and officials at the British Embassy in Washington invoking the United States-United Kingdom extradition treaty to bring him in front of Southwark Crown Court.
He pleaded guilty on June 14. Two weeks later Atkinson was named in the first Test squad of the summer while the family awaited the sentencing. Six weeks later Berouain was jailed, by which time Atkinson had made an astonishing start to his Test
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
They will be the looking for a protest vote, don't like any politcians type. You will have met them but most unlikely to ever discuss politics in any depth.
Yep. When knocking up on polling day (so we are only calling on those who said they were voting for us) I met hundreds of LD voters obviously, 1 Tory, no Labour but at least a dozen Reform. Others reported similar.
Now we obviously make mistakes, but not that many. They were, I believe, by and large those desperate to get rid of the Tories and going for us accordingly, but then hey ho a new white knight appeared for them to vote for in protest.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
Are they just following the lead of their glorious leader Farage? Or do they actually think like this?
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
A - That I think would make sense. But there is the "four year countback" provision they will have to think about. B - Likely. With immediate application ie from midnight tonight? C - They have to navigate the "no income tax increases" promise. How? My take was roll it in with removing cliff-edges. D - Possible as discussed. What about the transferable married couples tax allowance, which I think was reintroduced in some form. Politically, this is a contrast with the marriage, gay and trans obsessed parts of the Conservative Right - which is a theme of National Conservatism aiui.
I'd make it 50p from £100,000k but get rid of the utterly stupid, ludicrous, moronic attack on the PA at £100,001. And yes, I do have skin in this game. The admin is awful never mind anything else: and it creates a huge disincentive to make (and spend) the income, which is a barrier to growth. This could be a masterstroke from Rachel if she dares.
50% is a big psychological barrier for people (including me) especially with the 2% NI added in. It would mean that any income over £100k the primary beneficiary is the state rather than the person going out to do the work, 45% (47% really) is probably the upper limit but I think bringing that down to £60k and getting rid of the higher rate would also work (and removing all of the cliff edges). People on mid to high incomes would get an extra £10k at 20%, people on higher incomes would pay a bit more overall and we'd end the part time incentive at £100k.
No way will Reeves do that - she just about could conceivably do what @Anabobazina suggests, but nothing she's done so far tells me she's that creative.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
A - That I think would make sense. But there is the "four year countback" provision they will have to think about. B - Likely. With immediate application ie from midnight tonight? C - They have to navigate the "no income tax increases" promise. How? My take was roll it in with removing cliff-edges. D - Possible as discussed. What about the transferable married couples tax allowance, which I think was reintroduced in some form. Politically, this is a contrast with the marriage, gay and trans obsessed parts of the Conservative Right - which is a theme of National Conservatism aiui.
I'd make it 50p from £100,000k but get rid of the utterly stupid, ludicrous, moronic attack on the PA at £100,001. And yes, I do have skin in this game. The admin is awful never mind anything else: and it creates a huge disincentive to make (and spend) the income, which is a barrier to growth. This could be a masterstroke from Rachel if she dares.
I'm not against the withdrawal of the PA as you earn more as it is of greater benefit to higher earners when it is actually there for the low income people.
HOWEVER the current implementation is very crude resulting in the steps up and down in the marginal tax rates and the leap from 40% to 60% at £100,000 and then the drop later is just silly. It should be introduced earlier, but with a much, much more gradual withdrawal of the PA which ends at a new marginal tax rate when the PA is all lost.
So the marginal tax rate has the steps removed from it as much as possible and it becomes a smooth curve, thus removing the incentives to avoid going over certain tax points.
No.
If you remove the personal allowance - even if gradually between £100k and £150k - then you create the situation that your £150,001 pound is worth more than your £100,000 one.
If you want to make the tax system more progressive, raise rates, don't play silly buggers with personal allowances.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Part of the problem is "people" thinking that one party represents the uniform view of a particular geography or social class.
The average Reform voter is C2, low education, male and older working age. But a hell of a lot of ABC1s voted Reform too, and in the lowest DE social group 34% voted Labour, 6% voted Green and 10% voted Lib Dem.
Should we listen to the 19% of the DE group who voted Reform and decide, as Matt Goodwin would have us believe, that they and only they are the real working class or the real left behind?
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
A - That I think would make sense. But there is the "four year countback" provision they will have to think about. B - Likely. With immediate application ie from midnight tonight? C - They have to navigate the "no income tax increases" promise. How? My take was roll it in with removing cliff-edges. D - Possible as discussed. What about the transferable married couples tax allowance, which I think was reintroduced in some form. Politically, this is a contrast with the marriage, gay and trans obsessed parts of the Conservative Right - which is a theme of National Conservatism aiui.
I'd make it 50p from £100,000k but get rid of the utterly stupid, ludicrous, moronic attack on the PA at £100,001. And yes, I do have skin in this game. The admin is awful never mind anything else: and it creates a huge disincentive to make (and spend) the income, which is a barrier to growth. This could be a masterstroke from Rachel if she dares.
50% is a big psychological barrier for people (including me) especially with the 2% NI added in. It would mean that any income over £100k the primary beneficiary is the state rather than the person going out to do the work, 45% (47% really) is probably the upper limit but I think bringing that down to £60k and getting rid of the higher rate would also work (and removing all of the cliff edges). People on mid to high incomes would get an extra £10k at 20%, people on higher incomes would pay a bit more overall and we'd end the part time incentive at £100k.
How would you reduce the marginal tax rate for those on universal credit to below 50%?
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
I suspect because they're not the "voter base" as such, but probably people who either vote Lib Dem tactically because they don't like the Tories/SNP (there could be some pretty right wing anti-SNP voters in there for example) or on the basis of some old fashioned none of the above sentiment.
Still, good to see the party is the least Trumpy of the lot. But the really fascinating part of the story is the low proportion of Tory supporters who are Trumpers. Virtually the same as Labour. A clear picture emerges of that residual vote in 2024 being traditionalist small-c conservatives sticking with the party through thick and thin. BigGs in other words. Not proto-Farages.
Yes. This illustrates the Tory problem well. They have trashed the brand with Reformy types by being establishment and centrist, and trashed the brand with One Nationers by being reformy and out on a limb. Illustrated beautifully by their policy of having both more and fewer net inward migrants simultaneously.
If they fail to choose between these incompatible goals they will be a long time out of government, and eventually become either the third of even fourth party in parliament.
The centre is a crowded field. The bold move would be in a Reform direction, abandoning people like me. It will make politics interesting.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
Are they just following the lead of their glorious leader Farage? Or do they actually think like this?
Maybe a mixture. It's notable that the Reform voting split by gender is almost as marked as the MAGA one. That whole tone - macho, aggressive, smash it all up and rebuild from the ruins etc - seems to appeal much more to male voters than female. And Reform's biggest voting bloc is the C2 grouping, and people in their 50s and early 60s. Skilled non-graduate middle class. The Poujadiste bloc. Very much like the Trump core.
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Part of the problem is "people" thinking that one party represents the uniform view of a particular geography or social class.
The average Reform voter is C2, low education, male and older working age. But a hell of a lot of ABC1s voted Reform too, and in the lowest DE social group 34% voted Labour, 6% voted Green and 10% voted Lib Dem.
Should we listen to the 19% of the DE group who voted Reform and decide, as Matt Goodwin would have us believe, that they and only they are the real working class or the real left behind?
What we need to do is recognise a great many communities have been, and continue to be, left behind and listen to a broad spectrum of voices and do what we can to try to improve the, and level up. Spread the jobs, prosperity and wealth and move away from managed decline. That very much includes the reform support which people wish to ignore because Farage is apparentLy a fascist or some such stuff.
Some here think all you need to do to level up,is increase public sector pay. How does that help the majority of people in these areas.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
I suspect because they're not the "voter base" as such, but probably people who either vote Lib Dem tactically because they don't like the Tories/SNP (there could be some pretty right wing anti-SNP voters in there for example) or on the basis of some old fashioned none of the above sentiment.
Still, good to see the party is the least Trumpy of the lot. But the really fascinating part of the story is the low proportion of Tory supporters who are Trumpers. Virtually the same as Labour. A clear picture emerges of that residual vote in 2024 being traditionalist small-c conservatives sticking with the party through thick and thin. BigGs in other words. Not proto-Farages.
Yes. This illustrates the Tory problem well. They have trashed the brand with Reformy types by being establishment and centrist, and trashed the brand with One Nationers by being reformy and out on a limb. Illustrated beautifully by their policy of having both more and fewer net inward migrants simultaneously.
If they fail to choose between these incompatible goals they will be a long time out of government, and eventually become either the third of even fourth party in parliament.
The centre is a crowded field. The bold move would be in a Reform direction, abandoning people like me. It will make politics interesting.
I think it was Rcs who made the point they need to become the party of the right again and neuter reform. So they target them first. Reform are also a threat to labour too. Labour need to look to neuter them.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Part of the problem is "people" thinking that one party represents the uniform view of a particular geography or social class.
The average Reform voter is C2, low education, male and older working age. But a hell of a lot of ABC1s voted Reform too, and in the lowest DE social group 34% voted Labour, 6% voted Green and 10% voted Lib Dem.
Should we listen to the 19% of the DE group who voted Reform and decide, as Matt Goodwin would have us believe, that they and only they are the real working class or the real left behind?
There are exceptions but Reform does best amongst white working class, 45-60 year old males who live outside London. Almost all of them voted Leave, many of them voted for Boris, they hated Sunak and Starmer, they love Farage and many love Trump too
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Part of the problem is "people" thinking that one party represents the uniform view of a particular geography or social class.
The average Reform voter is C2, low education, male and older working age. But a hell of a lot of ABC1s voted Reform too, and in the lowest DE social group 34% voted Labour, 6% voted Green and 10% voted Lib Dem.
Should we listen to the 19% of the DE group who voted Reform and decide, as Matt Goodwin would have us believe, that they and only they are the real working class or the real left behind?
What we need to do is recognise a great many communities have been, and continue to be, left behind and listen to a broad spectrum of voices and do what we can to try to improve the, and level up. Spread the jobs, prosperity and wealth and move away from managed decline. That very much includes the reform support which people wish to ignore because Farage is apparentLy a fascist or some such stuff.
Some here think all you need to do to level up,is increase public sector pay. How does that help the majority of people in these areas.
Indeed, the average Reform voter is self employed, maybe an electrician or plumber or works in a private sector factory or shop floor or construction site. Increasing public sector pay helps Labour not Reform voters
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
Most proposals to tax per mile involve constant tracking of every car, which would make it relatively easy to implement a per journey tax instead, or as well.
I suppose if you were to charge the per mile VED when the odometer is read for an MOT then you don't need to do the tracking.
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
And there's always your Brompton.
We he can just fit in the cargo bed of his double cab pick up truck.
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
And there's always your Brompton.
All cyclists would immediately come under suspicion of tracking evasion. Must be up to no good...
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
I suspect because they're not the "voter base" as such, but probably people who either vote Lib Dem tactically because they don't like the Tories/SNP (there could be some pretty right wing anti-SNP voters in there for example) or on the basis of some old fashioned none of the above sentiment.
Still, good to see the party is the least Trumpy of the lot. But the really fascinating part of the story is the low proportion of Tory supporters who are Trumpers. Virtually the same as Labour. A clear picture emerges of that residual vote in 2024 being traditionalist small-c conservatives sticking with the party through thick and thin. BigGs in other words. Not proto-Farages.
Yes. This illustrates the Tory problem well. They have trashed the brand with Reformy types by being establishment and centrist, and trashed the brand with One Nationers by being reformy and out on a limb. Illustrated beautifully by their policy of having both more and fewer net inward migrants simultaneously.
If they fail to choose between these incompatible goals they will be a long time out of government, and eventually become either the third of even fourth party in parliament.
The centre is a crowded field. The bold move would be in a Reform direction, abandoning people like me. It will make politics interesting.
I think it was Rcs who made the point they need to become the party of the right again and neuter reform. So they target them first. Reform are also a threat to labour too. Labour need to look to neuter them.
Interesting. The issue requiring a genius of a new leader is really this. Is it possible to be a modern Tory party - an election winning machine - which targets and destroys Reform and has an offer embracing:
competence (without which nothing works) fiscal rectitude (unlike Reform's bogus manifesto) outside the narrow Overton window (popular and radical but doesn't take more money off anyone) honesty a universally loved migration policy, but only one policy at a time (fewer and more migrants simultaneously is not allowed) and people under 65 would vote for it in reasonable numbers.
As I say, true genius required. I am not holding my breath.
'Hamas is still holding many innocent Jewish hostages while Israel tries to prevent a repeat of the 7th October massacre. Why are Lammy and Starmer abandoning Israel? Do they want Hamas to win?' https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1830848390952808572
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
And there's always your Brompton.
All cyclists would immediately come under suspicion of tracking evasion. Must be up to no good...
You'd get people volunteering to be tracked on their bicycle if you offered them free driving credits in exchange for every mile cycled.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
A - That I think would make sense. But there is the "four year countback" provision they will have to think about. B - Likely. With immediate application ie from midnight tonight? C - They have to navigate the "no income tax increases" promise. How? My take was roll it in with removing cliff-edges. D - Possible as discussed. What about the transferable married couples tax allowance, which I think was reintroduced in some form. Politically, this is a contrast with the marriage, gay and trans obsessed parts of the Conservative Right - which is a theme of National Conservatism aiui.
I'd make it 50p from £100,000k but get rid of the utterly stupid, ludicrous, moronic attack on the PA at £100,001. And yes, I do have skin in this game. The admin is awful never mind anything else: and it creates a huge disincentive to make (and spend) the income, which is a barrier to growth. This could be a masterstroke from Rachel if she dares.
50% is a big psychological barrier for people (including me) especially with the 2% NI added in. It would mean that any income over £100k the primary beneficiary is the state rather than the person going out to do the work, 45% (47% really) is probably the upper limit but I think bringing that down to £60k and getting rid of the higher rate would also work (and removing all of the cliff edges). People on mid to high incomes would get an extra £10k at 20%, people on higher incomes would pay a bit more overall and we'd end the part time incentive at £100k.
Yes, fair enough – fair point about the 2% tipping it to 52%, which as you say means one keeps less than half. Even so, I'd wear 48%+2% (50% overall) if it means getting rid of the cliff edge.
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
That's a very good point I'd never considered. Hmm. But if we're moving away from fuel duty we do need something that has at least a passing relationship with usage and the amount a driver makes use of transport infrastructure.
Perhaps a flat charge per journey plus a payment per mile. It wouldn't be fair to charge the same for a 10 minute journey to pick up the shopping and a 200 mile drive up the M6. That's how much other pricing works.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
Of those
1 - Is the ending of a temporary crisis tax break. Even the Tories weren't committed to preserving that. I'd say the suspended 5p of VED (and the VAT making it 6p) will be unsuspended, and the inflation link will be restored. Personally I'd bring back John Major's +3% escalator from the next budget.
2 - That will be finessed to about 1/2 to 2/3 of pensioners imo.
3 - Will stay. Not sure of the impact; I suspect that some community initiatives of independent schools could be withdrawn to mitigate the cost - though that was not what Eton did.
4 - I'm not sure that we are ready for that, and there are many other alternatives which would be more straightforward imo. That will be smoother to introduce in 4 or 5 years, perhaps.
Anecdotally we (a state school) have seen an up tick in applicants to our sixth-form from independent schools. Would be interesting to know how many pupils need to transfer before the vat rise becomes a net negative…
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Part of the problem is "people" thinking that one party represents the uniform view of a particular geography or social class.
The average Reform voter is C2, low education, male and older working age. But a hell of a lot of ABC1s voted Reform too, and in the lowest DE social group 34% voted Labour, 6% voted Green and 10% voted Lib Dem.
Should we listen to the 19% of the DE group who voted Reform and decide, as Matt Goodwin would have us believe, that they and only they are the real working class or the real left behind?
What we need to do is recognise a great many communities have been, and continue to be, left behind and listen to a broad spectrum of voices and do what we can to try to improve the, and level up. Spread the jobs, prosperity and wealth and move away from managed decline. That very much includes the reform support which people wish to ignore because Farage is apparentLy a fascist or some such stuff.
Some here think all you need to do to level up,is increase public sector pay. How does that help the majority of people in these areas.
I'm not sure I've seen anyone in here suggest public sector pay as the solution to levelling up, but perhaps I missed it.
Spreading public sector jobs regionally yes, though that's already been done to a great extent.
Nunu's dedication to the cause of gagging Twix is highly suspect - I think that his posts on this are precisely to expound this theory by claiming to tut-tut it. It's you who is helping him do this not me. I hadn't even heard of it before I heard it on here.
So, on first hearing about the far right spreading conspiracy theories, your instinct was to go, "Hmmm, maybe those far right groups are right about those conspiracy theories"?
I'm open to the idea of an organised attack on Christian places of worship, yes. Christians are a hugely persecuted group worldwide, and this goes massively underreported because as a cause it's deeply unfashionable.
I know you’re open to conspiracy theories. That’s a problem, not something to proud of.
Christians are persecuted in many parts of the world… but we’re talking about France.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Part of the problem is "people" thinking that one party represents the uniform view of a particular geography or social class.
The average Reform voter is C2, low education, male and older working age. But a hell of a lot of ABC1s voted Reform too, and in the lowest DE social group 34% voted Labour, 6% voted Green and 10% voted Lib Dem.
Should we listen to the 19% of the DE group who voted Reform and decide, as Matt Goodwin would have us believe, that they and only they are the real working class or the real left behind?
There are exceptions but Reform does best amongst white working class, 45-60 year old males who live outside London. Almost all of them voted Leave, many of them voted for Boris, they hated Sunak and Starmer, they love Farage and many love Trump too
They do best amongst the lower middle class - the C2 grouping.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
I suspect because they're not the "voter base" as such, but probably people who either vote Lib Dem tactically because they don't like the Tories/SNP (there could be some pretty right wing anti-SNP voters in there for example) or on the basis of some old fashioned none of the above sentiment.
Still, good to see the party is the least Trumpy of the lot. But the really fascinating part of the story is the low proportion of Tory supporters who are Trumpers. Virtually the same as Labour. A clear picture emerges of that residual vote in 2024 being traditionalist small-c conservatives sticking with the party through thick and thin. BigGs in other words. Not proto-Farages.
Yes. This illustrates the Tory problem well. They have trashed the brand with Reformy types by being establishment and centrist, and trashed the brand with One Nationers by being reformy and out on a limb. Illustrated beautifully by their policy of having both more and fewer net inward migrants simultaneously.
If they fail to choose between these incompatible goals they will be a long time out of government, and eventually become either the third of even fourth party in parliament.
The centre is a crowded field. The bold move would be in a Reform direction, abandoning people like me. It will make politics interesting.
I think it was Rcs who made the point they need to become the party of the right again and neuter reform. So they target them first. Reform are also a threat to labour too. Labour need to look to neuter them.
Interesting. The issue requiring a genius of a new leader is really this. Is it possible to be a modern Tory party - an election winning machine - which targets and destroys Reform and has an offer embracing:
competence (without which nothing works) fiscal rectitude (unlike Reform's bogus manifesto) outside the narrow Overton window (popular and radical but doesn't take more money off anyone) honesty a universally loved migration policy, but only one policy at a time (fewer and more migrants simultaneously is not allowed) and people under 65 would vote for it in reasonable numbers.
As I say, true genius required. I am not holding my breath.
Oppositions need to be seen as competent as a pre-condition of victory, but the trouble is that competence on its own is boring, and you have to wait until the government has entirely trashed its own brand (cf. Starmer).
The trick needed is to be both eye-catching and project competence, but that’s a tough call (Blair would be a possible example, except that by ‘97 the government had trashed its brand anyway, hence competence alone would have been enough). It’s too easy to fall into the Hague trap of allowing the eye-catching stuff to undermine the competence.
Arguably Davey gave the trick a try, by combining essentially competent character and stunts, which were nutty - but not in a political way. But I doubt that would work for a potentially incoming government (indeed the LibDems face similar challenges about how they will fight the next election - right now their prospects appear to hang on the Tories remaining nutty).
Probably the reality is that the Tories will have to project competence for a sustained, boring period with little payoff, while they wait for Labour to run out of road. The challenge will be avoiding nutty flights of fancy meanwhile, which simply give Labour more road.
Per mile VED is a terrible idea. It's basically a tax break for the 61% of car journeys below 5 miles - the main reason we have problems with congestion and exactly the kind of journey we want people to be walking or cycling instead.
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
Living in England in sight of Scotland and the wonderful M74 just up the road I'll settle for that plan thanks.
… O ye'll take the high road and I'll take the M74 And I'll be in Scotland afore ye at 0.01p a mile For me and my true love will never meet again At the bonnie, bonnie Burger King in Abington services.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Part of the problem is "people" thinking that one party represents the uniform view of a particular geography or social class.
The average Reform voter is C2, low education, male and older working age. But a hell of a lot of ABC1s voted Reform too, and in the lowest DE social group 34% voted Labour, 6% voted Green and 10% voted Lib Dem.
Should we listen to the 19% of the DE group who voted Reform and decide, as Matt Goodwin would have us believe, that they and only they are the real working class or the real left behind?
There are exceptions but Reform does best amongst white working class, 45-60 year old males who live outside London. Almost all of them voted Leave, many of them voted for Boris, they hated Sunak and Starmer, they love Farage and many love Trump too
They do best amongst the lower middle class - the C2 grouping.
C2 is skilled working class, C1 is lower middle class.
Reform does best with the former, Starmer Labour now does best with the latter.
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
I want to meet the 'Vote Trump' branch of the LDs, forming 16% of their voter base or just over 500,000 people. Why have I never met one?
I suspect because they're not the "voter base" as such, but probably people who either vote Lib Dem tactically because they don't like the Tories/SNP (there could be some pretty right wing anti-SNP voters in there for example) or on the basis of some old fashioned none of the above sentiment.
Still, good to see the party is the least Trumpy of the lot. But the really fascinating part of the story is the low proportion of Tory supporters who are Trumpers. Virtually the same as Labour. A clear picture emerges of that residual vote in 2024 being traditionalist small-c conservatives sticking with the party through thick and thin. BigGs in other words. Not proto-Farages.
Yes. This illustrates the Tory problem well. They have trashed the brand with Reformy types by being establishment and centrist, and trashed the brand with One Nationers by being reformy and out on a limb. Illustrated beautifully by their policy of having both more and fewer net inward migrants simultaneously.
If they fail to choose between these incompatible goals they will be a long time out of government, and eventually become either the third of even fourth party in parliament.
The centre is a crowded field. The bold move would be in a Reform direction, abandoning people like me. It will make politics interesting.
I think it was Rcs who made the point they need to become the party of the right again and neuter reform. So they target them first. Reform are also a threat to labour too. Labour need to look to neuter them.
Interesting. The issue requiring a genius of a new leader is really this. Is it possible to be a modern Tory party - an election winning machine - which targets and destroys Reform and has an offer embracing:
competence (without which nothing works) fiscal rectitude (unlike Reform's bogus manifesto) outside the narrow Overton window (popular and radical but doesn't take more money off anyone) honesty a universally loved migration policy, but only one policy at a time (fewer and more migrants simultaneously is not allowed) and people under 65 would vote for it in reasonable numbers.
As I say, true genius required. I am not holding my breath.
Implementing it is easier said then done, but the next leader could do worse than listen to Casino (when he's calm, obvs). He offers a practical way forward that still respects the rule of law, treaty obligations, some element of humanity, while controlling numbers.
The main difficulty is selling it to Reform voters when Farage will be doing everything he can to undermine you. The new leader would have to be more persuasive and convincing than Farage.
Unfortunately, all of the current contenders come with the handicap of being associated with the Tory government, 2010-24, which is an immediate blow to their credibility.
If the new leader takes the view that the next election is probably lost anyway, they might also consider that they might as well spend the next four years trying to tell the truth to the British public - about the demographic transition, the current account deficit, Britain having to pay its way in the world, etc - and thereby shift the Overton Window for subsequent elections.
Nunu's dedication to the cause of gagging Twix is highly suspect - I think that his posts on this are precisely to expound this theory by claiming to tut-tut it. It's you who is helping him do this not me. I hadn't even heard of it before I heard it on here.
So, on first hearing about the far right spreading conspiracy theories, your instinct was to go, "Hmmm, maybe those far right groups are right about those conspiracy theories"?
Is it a conspiracy that's being alleged or just a pattern?
A conspiracy, by Muslims.
A nonsense conspiracy being spread by the far right, and yet some here rush to defend it.
Comments
They have to be printed in resin so I've ordered the amazingly named 'Elegoo Saturn 4 Ultra' and will report back. Possibly from HMP Frankston.
As Gus Atkinson starred for England, driver who killed his mother was jailed after extradition fight
Exclusive investigation: Former Eastenders actor Youssef Berouain has been sentenced to eight years for car crash that killed Caroline
On the day Gus Atkinson was celebrating four for 67 against West Indies at Edgbaston on July 26, one of many thrilling performances in his meteoric rise this summer, 120 miles south at Southwark Crown Court the man responsible for the death of his mother was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years imprisonment.
It was the end of a four-year legal fight to bring to justice actor Youssef Berouain, whose credits include parts in EastEnders, Doctors and the 9/11 mini series The Looming Tower.
A Telegraph Sport investigation can now reveal the full details of the case which started on a street in Fulham when a car driven by Berouain was involved in an accident that killed Caroline Atkinson, a 55-year-old mother of three, on Dec 10, 2020.
Police alleged Berouain was driving at double the speed limit in a 30mph zone, officers at the scene said they could smell cannabis on his person and he was acting erratically before refusing to undergo roadside testing.
But the story does not end on the streets of Fulham on a wet night in the lead up to Christmas four years ago. The actions of Berouain would lead to a long legal fight, because he flew to Dubai soon after to cover up his eventual destination, the United States. It then took in court hearings in London and Los Angeles, requiring the intervention of United States Marshals and officials at the British Embassy in Washington invoking the United States-United Kingdom extradition treaty to bring him in front of Southwark Crown Court.
He pleaded guilty on June 14. Two weeks later Atkinson was named in the first Test squad of the summer while the family awaited the sentencing. Six weeks later Berouain was jailed, by which time Atkinson had made an astonishing start to his Test
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2024/09/03/gus-atkinson-driver-killed-mother-car-youssef-berouain/
(The only way to win Leon back over)
Thanks for the provocative header.
The thing that stands out to me is how RefUK voters seem to think differently. The small 27% that think Con and RefUK are similar is one. Also the high 15% that think Con and Green are very similar.
House and Senate Republicans are starting to panic about a huge money gap with Democrats
https://x.com/New_Narrative/status/1830933538176119269
I'm thinking of demanding my £2 back because PB's own @Leon writes with more style and greater political insight, even when he's just reflecting American alt-right TwiX. Boris is just phoning it in.
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1830931139676049574?s=46
It seems pretty significant if we want to understand dynamics on the British right. Reform supporters are totally different in their views of Trump from the rest of the electorate, including Tory voters.
FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes
FTC’s final rule will generate over 8,500 new businesses each year, raise worker wages, lower health care costs, and boost innovation
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes
Good ECM and SIGINT is the key. Don't leave home without your Uniden R8. The power density of a pulse doppler radar signal is inversely proportional to the second power of the range. So you can detect a radar at four times the distance it can be used to usefully calculate speed. Probably more in practice due to atmospheric and reflective losses.
You lot might think you know something about speeding, but this is a full time fucking job for me. Behave yourselves.
Firstly, in fact, whatever the perceptions, Lab, Con and LD occupy a minute Overton window WRT all the big expenditure items, mostly relying on the narcissism of small differences to argue over - like should we sell weapons grade paperclips to Israel.
For most voters most of the time the big issue is not principle but competence in every aspect of civil and state funded management, from pot holes to hernias and dentists. If Labour forget this their regime will be troubled. It outweighs every other issue by miles.
Secondly the one manifesto in 2024 which was interesting was Reform:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371
not because I agree with it, I don't, but it was well outside the Overton window. It was actually different.
The Tories face an interesting choice. Competence remains the most important issue of all, no change there; but IMHO they have to choose between presenting a competent front to a 'like all the others' set of policies, or, if they chose, they could look at the Reform agenda, produce a properly costed version of a real alternative (Reform's costings are a joke) and await events.
In Opposition, the idea is to get back into power and in essence (and fact), Opposition party leaders will do and say whatever they need in order to win and that includes seemingly radical ideas.
Once in office and up against the cold hard wall of reality, they recognise the room for manoeuvre which exists in Opposition doesn't exist in Government. You might argue (and you'd probably be right) the days of any western Government opting for a significantly different economic policy have gone - Truss tried it and look what happened to her. I know, as a devotee of the policy, you thought it was right - doesn't matter, more powerful and influential forces decided it was wrong.
There's a window in which modern social democratic (let's not kid ourselves, Roy Jenkins won in the end) western Governments operate and you can't move too far from it. Britain's problem remains our obsession with American tax rates and European levels of public services and that's a circle which simply can't be squared.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
(The US middle class basically covers what we would call the lower middle class and working class and indeed even some of the upper middle class, it basically covers most Americans except the super rich and underclass and those on welfare or homeless)
However me predicting they won't change Osborne's give away should be a prompt for everyone to back them doing it.
At least Scotland tends to think Trump is a ****.
https://x.com/sitebadger/status/1829236815187837305
And is unlikely ever to lead the Tory party.
Farage is correct to back Trump based on his voter base but the other UK party leaders should keep their distance and retain links to Harris
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1830931139676049574
If one of a married couple has already died (between 2006 and 2024) and all the money has already passed to their spouse, there's no deed to be varied.
Anyway, I'm sure the government are dropping hints of all the annoying things they might consider but aren't actually going to do whilst hiding the actual nasties in a vault somewhere.
People don’t want to understand them and understand their left behind communities. They just want to name call and feel superior.
Casino little realises his role in Labour policy making...
Still, good to see the party is the least Trumpy of the lot. But the really fascinating part of the story is the low proportion of Tory supporters who are Trumpers. Virtually the same as Labour. A clear picture emerges of that residual vote in 2024 being traditionalist small-c conservatives sticking with the party through thick and thin. BigGs in other words. Not proto-Farages.
HOWEVER the current implementation is very crude resulting in the steps up and down in the marginal tax rates and the leap from 40% to 60% at £100,000 and then the drop later is just silly. It should be introduced earlier, but with a much, much more gradual withdrawal of the PA which ends at a new marginal tax rate when the PA is all lost.
So the marginal tax rate has the steps removed from it as much as possible and it becomes a smooth curve, thus removing the incentives to avoid going over certain tax points.
This is unacceptable and the answer lies with the French and UK governments to agree all boat crossing will be returned to France, no matter where they are intercepted in the channel, with no need for any other deterrent
Also 5 children arrested on suspicion of the murder of an 80 year old
Every day seems to bring its own terrible news, and it is understandable why so many are depressed and anxious and even suffering mental health issues
Update - now 13 lives lost in the channel
Now we obviously make mistakes, but not that many. They were, I believe, by and large those desperate to get rid of the Tories and going for us accordingly, but then hey ho a new white knight appeared for them to vote for in protest.
If you remove the personal allowance - even if gradually between £100k and £150k - then you create the situation that your £150,001 pound is worth more than your £100,000 one.
If you want to make the tax system more progressive, raise rates, don't play silly buggers with personal allowances.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election
The average Reform voter is C2, low education, male and older working age. But a hell of a lot of ABC1s voted Reform too, and in the lowest DE social group 34% voted Labour, 6% voted Green and 10% voted Lib Dem.
Should we listen to the 19% of the DE group who voted Reform and decide, as Matt Goodwin would have us believe, that they and only they are the real working class or the real left behind?
If they fail to choose between these incompatible goals they will be a long time out of government, and eventually become either the third of even fourth party in parliament.
The centre is a crowded field. The bold move would be in a Reform direction, abandoning people like me. It will make politics interesting.
Trump is reportedly eyeing a plan to involve prominent business executives, including Elon, in auditing federal agencies to identify programs to cut.
Elon has already shown interest in taking on the role.
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1830695425956852061
Per journey would be better, but difficult to implement.
What we need to do is recognise a great many communities have been, and continue to be, left behind and listen to a broad spectrum of voices and do what we can to try to improve the, and level up. Spread the jobs, prosperity and wealth and move away from managed decline. That very much includes the reform support which people wish to ignore because Farage is apparentLy a fascist or some such stuff.
Some here think all you need to do to level up,is increase public sector pay. How does that help the majority of people in these areas.
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
I suppose if you were to charge the per mile VED when the odometer is read for an MOT then you don't need to do the tracking.
I find both ideas pretty unpleasant though.
competence (without which nothing works)
fiscal rectitude (unlike Reform's bogus manifesto)
outside the narrow Overton window (popular and radical but doesn't take more money off anyone)
honesty
a universally loved migration policy, but only one policy at a time (fewer and more migrants simultaneously is not allowed)
and
people under 65 would vote for it in reasonable numbers.
As I say, true genius required. I am not holding my breath.
'Hamas is still holding many innocent Jewish hostages while Israel tries to prevent a repeat of the 7th October massacre. Why are Lammy and Starmer abandoning Israel? Do they want Hamas to win?'
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1830848390952808572
It all sounds so plausibly dystopian.
NEW THREAD
Perhaps a flat charge per journey plus a payment per mile. It wouldn't be fair to charge the same for a 10 minute journey to pick up the shopping and a 200 mile drive up the M6. That's how much other pricing works.
My guess is they will go for:
1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20%
2) increase capital gains tax
3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
Spreading public sector jobs regionally yes, though that's already been done to a great extent.
Christians are persecuted in many parts of the world… but we’re talking about France.
The trick needed is to be both eye-catching and project competence, but that’s a tough call (Blair would be a possible example, except that by ‘97 the government had trashed its brand anyway, hence competence alone would have been enough). It’s too easy to fall into the Hague trap of allowing the eye-catching stuff to undermine the competence.
Arguably Davey gave the trick a try, by combining essentially competent character and stunts, which were nutty - but not in a political way. But I doubt that would work for a potentially incoming government (indeed the LibDems face similar challenges about how they will fight the next election - right now their prospects appear to hang on the Tories remaining nutty).
Probably the reality is that the Tories will have to project competence for a sustained, boring period with little payoff, while they wait for Labour to run out of road. The challenge will be avoiding nutty flights of fancy meanwhile, which simply give Labour more road.
… O ye'll take the high road and I'll take the M74
And I'll be in Scotland afore ye at 0.01p a mile
For me and my true love will never meet again
At the bonnie, bonnie Burger King in Abington services.
Reform does best with the former, Starmer Labour now does best with the latter.
The Sunak Tories and LDs did best with ABs
The main difficulty is selling it to Reform voters when Farage will be doing everything he can to undermine you. The new leader would have to be more persuasive and convincing than Farage.
Unfortunately, all of the current contenders come with the handicap of being associated with the Tory government, 2010-24, which is an immediate blow to their credibility.
If the new leader takes the view that the next election is probably lost anyway, they might also consider that they might as well spend the next four years trying to tell the truth to the British public - about the demographic transition, the current account deficit, Britain having to pay its way in the world, etc - and thereby shift the Overton Window for subsequent elections.
A nonsense conspiracy being spread by the far right, and yet some here rush to defend it.