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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
The lack of excise duty of non-alcoholic beer appears to make very little difference to the price of the product.
Horrors. Pubs round here are closing fast. Which is sad but no surprise. BTW Lidl 0% beer is OK and very inexpensive. Sadly alcohol is off limits for medical reasons. My own view is that the best substitutes are 0% beer and gin/tonic. Drinks with bitterness survive the 0% regime loads better than others in terms of retaining a 'bite'. 0% Heineken has an interesting and lingering apple-like aftertaste.
if anyone ever find a 0% red wine that bears any relation to red wine, please inform! I am fairly sure it can't be done.
Heineken zero the best of the alcohol free Pils-style beers, having tried quite a few. Maybe I'll give Lidl a go.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
Nationalise the stills, and introduce Victory Gin.
'...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Keir Starmer.'
I've just bought a Starmer badge from the online Labour shop. It's him in a plain white shirt, no tie, neat hair, studious normcore glasses, looking directly at camera with the most solid sensible expression you've ever seen in your life. Over the picture is the single word CHANGE. There's absolutely nothing not to like about it. No rip-off pricing either (Gallaghers take note). At £3.50 it's 10p less than you'd pay for a Tesco meal deal.
This is the problem with road pricing though. There's not always a choice and someone is bound to be unfairly penalised. Before long you've got demands for exceptions.
“I do think there are a number of things that we can do and we should do, because otherwise you get to the situation where families simply can’t go, or are absolutely spending a fortune on tickets, whatever it may be.
“So we’ll grip this and make sure that actually tickets are available at a price that people can actually afford.”
Wait till he hears what the Ritz is asking ordinary hardworking families to pay for a suite.
They have a massive majority but are acting like they are still in opposition. Fucking do something. Ideally, today.
What we need is a Phone Theft Czar, an Office of Ticket Regulation (Tickoff), A Water Leaks Supremo and bring back the much missed Cones Hotline. That should sort most of the world's major problems.
'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
Who is this disingenuous w*****? Has he no understanding of treading a foreign policy tightrope, particularly in a warzone.
If the Chief Rabbi believe the sanction to have gone too far and Amnesty International, not far enough, it looks about right to me.
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
Nationalise the stills, and introduce Victory Gin.
'...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Keir Starmer.'
I've just bought a Starmer badge from the online Labour shop. It's him in a plain white shirt, no tie, neat hair, studious normcore glasses, looking directly at camera with the most solid sensible expression you've ever seen in your life. Over the picture is the single word CHANGE. There's absolutely nothing not to like about it. No rip-off pricing either (Gallaghers take note). At £3.50 it's 10p less than you'd pay for a Tesco meal deal.
..you might consider laying the GOP for control of the Senate because the way the terms of Betfair market and how they treat independents who caucus with the Dems makes a Dem majority unlikely. ..
I've been saying this for a couple of weeks.
I don't understand that.
If you think a Dem majority is unlikely, why would you lay the GOP?
The Betfair terms are "Any independent senator will be added to totals of the party if they caucus/align with that Party." This helps not hinders the Dems.
The Dems need to hold Montana for 50/50 with VP Waltz having the casting vote. Dems have lost West Virginia.
Republicans are 5% ahead in the Senate poll for Montana according to RCP. It's a stretch for the DEMs. I reckon the Betfair odds are about right. 1/3 chance for the DEMs.
Because you might want to bet against a GOP majority. If would be galling to succeed in that bet, and be denied a payout because a Senator decided not to caucus with either party...
'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
Who is this disingenuous w*****? Has he no understanding of treading a foreign policy tightrope, particularly in a warzone.
If the Chief Rabbi believe the sanction to have gone too far and Amnesty International, not far enough, it looks about right to me.
Are either of them the best people to listen to on foreign policy?
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
Getting rid of the double relief of £650,000 will simply cause well-advised married couples to leave up to £325,000 on a discretionary trust in their wills, on each death, which was the norm, prior to 2008. Alternatively, beneficiaries will execute post-death variations, to achieve the same result.
Extra lawyers fees though. Labour also needs to remember it now holds seats like Kensington and Bayswater, Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham, Eltham and Chislehurst, Hampstead and Kilburn, Putney, Battersea, Southgate and Wood Green, Uxbridge, Beckenham, Welwyn Hatfield, both Reading seats, both Milton Keynes seats, Hove etc all of which would be hit by removing the double relief. All of the above voted Tory in 2010 after Osborne proposed the double relief (except Hampstead which Labour held by just 42 votes) and most of the above voted Tory in 2019
It would be unpopular, without question,
The Tories aren’t going to be swept back into power any time soon just because Labour does a few unpopular things to raise money. Indeed there’s likely a payoff for being honest about our state of affairs, given that most of us can see the mess all around us.
The key is whether there’s a visible payback in five years time. Labour would do better being bold and unpopular now, and then ensuring people can see the results when it matters.
A lot of these measures will raise peanuts, but piss people off.
Starmer has none of the joie de vivre of Blair either to sell them.
Raising fuel duty is very unpopular, and even hit Blair - and more recently Macron, so I'll be interested to see how that one goes down.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
Nationalise the stills, and introduce Victory Gin.
'...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Keir Starmer.'
I've just bought a Starmer badge from the online Labour shop. It's him in a plain white shirt, no tie, neat hair, studious normcore glasses, looking directly at camera with the most solid sensible expression you've ever seen in your life. Over the picture is the single word CHANGE. There's absolutely nothing not to like about it. No rip-off pricing either (Gallaghers take note). At £3.50 it's 10p less than you'd pay for a Tesco meal deal.
Have you been reading too much Samuel Beckett? The last line of this prose poem is packed with as much emotion and ennui as passages of Godot.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
Nationalise the stills, and introduce Victory Gin.
So after 5 sun baked days in Vienna I return to the UK to find Labour are even more shite than when I left.
2 months in and they still dont know what theyre doing.
The PM’s priority this week seems to be Ticketmaster.
Now they’re a total scumbag of a company who have just given the government £30 or £40m in VAT payments, but can’t help thinking there’s more important priorities right now.
Oh, and look in the register of interests for Starmer’s tickets to a Wembley show, because it’s a 100% certainty he’ll be there and won’t have paid from his own pocket.
I do agree Jas Athwal's behaviour has been appalling and it doesn't matter what political party you support, landlords have a responsibility to ensure their tenants (who are paying for the privilege of living in your accommodation) are living in conditions which are at the very least suitable for human habitation and if there are problems, it is the landlord's responsibility to ensure prompt resolution.
There is a place for a strong, well-regulated private rental sector - not everyone wants to or can aspire to be a homeowner. Renting suits some people and it must be an integral part of an overall housing framework.
I'd also say a lot of private landlords are entirely respectable individuals who do a lot for their tenants and it must be frustrating for them when tenants don't pay or cause damage to their property. However, it's also calear there are landlords who don't live up to the standards imposed by the law and by local authorities and while the forced dispersal of their properties might be draconian, it might be an answer for those who persistently refuse to improve, repair or adequately maintain their rental portfolio.
I'd also have a much stronger public rental sector either but that ship has probably sailed.
Getting rid of the double relief of £650,000 will simply cause well-advised married couples to leave up to £325,000 on a discretionary trust in their wills, on each death, which was the norm, prior to 2008. Alternatively, beneficiaries will execute post-death variations, to achieve the same result.
Extra lawyers fees though. Labour also needs to remember it now holds seats like Kensington and Bayswater, Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham, Eltham and Chislehurst, Hampstead and Kilburn, Putney, Battersea, Southgate and Wood Green, Uxbridge, Beckenham, Welwyn Hatfield, both Reading seats, both Milton Keynes seats, Hove etc all of which would be hit by removing the double relief. All of the above voted Tory in 2010 after Osborne proposed the double relief (except Hampstead which Labour held by just 42 votes) and most of the above voted Tory in 2019
It would be unpopular, without question,
The Tories aren’t going to be swept back into power any time soon just because Labour does a few unpopular things to raise money. Indeed there’s likely a payoff for being honest about our state of affairs, given that most of us can see the mess all around us.
The key is whether there’s a visible payback in five years time. Labour would do better being bold and unpopular now, and then ensuring people can see the results when it matters.
A lot of these measures will raise peanuts, but piss people off.
Starmer has none of the joie de vivre of Blair either to sell them.
Raising fuel duty is very unpopular, and even hit Blair - and more recently Macron, so I'll be interested to see how that one goes down.
They have a massive majority but are acting like they are still in opposition. Fucking do something. Ideally, today.
What we need is a Phone Theft Czar, an Office of Ticket Regulation (Tickoff), A Water Leaks Supremo and bring back the much missed Cones Hotline. That should sort most of the world's major problems.
Hotlines screwed if everyone’s had their phones nicked..
So after 5 sun baked days in Vienna I return to the UK to find Labour are even more shite than when I left.
2 months in and they still dont know what theyre doing.
The PM’s priority this week seems to be Ticketmaster.
Now they’re a total scumbag of a company who have just given the government £30 or £40m in VAT payments, but can’t help thinking there’s more important priorities right now.
Oh, and look in the register of interests for Starmer’s tickets to a Wembley show, because it’s a 100% certainty he’ll be there and won’t have paid from his own pocket.
I thought pissing on the WWC by banning smoking was a classic Starmer wheeze.
..you might consider laying the GOP for control of the Senate because the way the terms of Betfair market and how they treat independents who caucus with the Dems makes a Dem majority unlikely. ..
I've been saying this for a couple of weeks.
Isn't there a typo in that? The "GOP" are the Republicans.
No. He wants to be with the Democrats, and the way to do that is lay Republicans, not back Democrats, because of Betfair rules re independents.
Betfair rules include independents caucusing with the Democrats so that isn't an issue.
They have a massive majority but are acting like they are still in opposition. Fucking do something. Ideally, today.
What we need is a Phone Theft Czar, an Office of Ticket Regulation (Tickoff), A Water Leaks Supremo and bring back the much missed Cones Hotline. That should sort most of the world's major problems.
Hotlines screwed if everyone’s had their phones nicked..
“I do think there are a number of things that we can do and we should do, because otherwise you get to the situation where families simply can’t go, or are absolutely spending a fortune on tickets, whatever it may be.
“So we’ll grip this and make sure that actually tickets are available at a price that people can actually afford.”
The people most ripped off by the resale shenanigans are probably the band.
If someone wants to pay £300 to listen to Liam phoning it in then that's up to them.
Is he going to insist on seats for league games being £10 at the Emirates as well?
I thought this kind of stupid soundbite would stop now they are actually in government. Apparently not.
So after 5 sun baked days in Vienna I return to the UK to find Labour are even more shite than when I left.
2 months in and they still dont know what theyre doing.
The PM’s priority this week seems to be Ticketmaster.
Now they’re a total scumbag of a company who have just given the government £30 or £40m in VAT payments, but can’t help thinking there’s more important priorities right now.
Oh, and look in the register of interests for Starmer’s tickets to a Wembley show, because it’s a 100% certainty he’ll be there and won’t have paid from his own pocket.
They were a gift from the FA, whose President is the Prince of Wales.
“I do think there are a number of things that we can do and we should do, because otherwise you get to the situation where families simply can’t go, or are absolutely spending a fortune on tickets, whatever it may be.
“So we’ll grip this and make sure that actually tickets are available at a price that people can actually afford.”
Wait till he hears what the Ritz is asking ordinary hardworking families to pay for a suite.
"I've spoken to Noel and Liam and told them that it's not big and it's not clever, and we have not taken the option of nationalising Oasis off the table."
Trump does not have a single campaign event this week, according to his website. His next scheduled public appearance is Saturday in Wisconsin. https://x.com/atrupar/status/1830983480387477933
This is the week campaigns are supposed to start in earnest, traditionally.
“I do think there are a number of things that we can do and we should do, because otherwise you get to the situation where families simply can’t go, or are absolutely spending a fortune on tickets, whatever it may be.
“So we’ll grip this and make sure that actually tickets are available at a price that people can actually afford.”
The people most ripped off by the resale shenanigans are probably the band.
If someone wants to pay £300 to listen to Liam phoning it in then that's up to them.
Is he going to insist on seats for league games being £10 at the Emirates as well?
I thought this kind of stupid soundbite would stop now they are actually in government. Apparently not.
I thought the problem was the escalating prices as the number of tickets reduced, not resale?
The ticket companies and artists both hate resale anyway - unless it is resale via them.
Some ticket companies have made their ticket electronic and non-transferable. So all you can do is sell them back to the company. At the original price . Minus the “handling fees”. The ticket company then resells at a higher price…
They have a massive majority but are acting like they are still in opposition. Fucking do something. Ideally, today.
They should write the pledge on a megalith. “We promise to bring phone thefts down by 78% over the next four years”, “and reduce general nastiness by a third”, “and we make a solemn vow that the whole migration thing will be fine soon enough, to be sure”
Then place the megalith in a vitrine and ceremonially lower it into a shipping container on a side road need Nuneaton so we KNOW that all these things are going to happen, and they’re not just empty promises from a bunch of clueless wankers
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
Nationalise the stills, and introduce Victory Gin.
'...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Keir Starmer.'
I've just bought a Starmer badge from the online Labour shop. It's him in a plain white shirt, no tie, neat hair, studious normcore glasses, looking directly at camera with the most solid sensible expression you've ever seen in your life. Over the picture is the single word CHANGE. There's absolutely nothing not to like about it. No rip-off pricing either (Gallaghers take note). At £3.50 it's 10p less than you'd pay for a Tesco meal deal.
..you might consider laying the GOP for control of the Senate because the way the terms of Betfair market and how they treat independents who caucus with the Dems makes a Dem majority unlikely. ..
I've been saying this for a couple of weeks.
I don't understand that.
If you think a Dem majority is unlikely, why would you lay the GOP?
The Betfair terms are "Any independent senator will be added to totals of the party if they caucus/align with that Party." This helps not hinders the Dems.
The Dems need to hold Montana for 50/50 with VP Waltz having the casting vote. Dems have lost West Virginia.
Republicans are 5% ahead in the Senate poll for Montana according to RCP. It's a stretch for the DEMs. I reckon the Betfair odds are about right. 1/3 chance for the DEMs.
Whatever you're posting, quoting RCP does NOT make your post(s) more persuasive.
Just sayin'.
I agree for reasons we've been over. It was the only data readily available on Montana Senate race. Three polls.
On further investigation on 538 I see there are five polls since July 1st> GOP (Sheehy) leads of 5,2,6,-5 and 7. Average 3.0 compared with RCP's 5.0. It doesn't materially alter my conclusion. Sheehy's to lose. Likely 51/49 GOP Senate but 50/50 is definitely possible.
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
We should be looking to increase the number of pensioners retiring with 500k or so, and given budget constraints that means making it harder for the pensioners retiring with 1m plus as we just can't help everyone.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
Nationalise the stills, and introduce Victory Gin.
'...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Keir Starmer.'
I've just bought a Starmer badge from the online Labour shop. It's him in a plain white shirt, no tie, neat hair, studious normcore glasses, looking directly at camera with the most solid sensible expression you've ever seen in your life. Over the picture is the single word CHANGE. There's absolutely nothing not to like about it. No rip-off pricing either (Gallaghers take note). At £3.50 it's 10p less than you'd pay for a Tesco meal deal.
Have you been reading too much Samuel Beckett? The last line of this prose poem is packed with as much emotion and ennui as passages of Godot.
Ha no. More cod Alan Bennett, I'd say (just finished his memoirs) but I'll take it. I am still waiting for Godot. It's a play I'd definitely go see if it came to somewhere amenable.
I always knew there was a risk they’d be dismal. I voted with gritted teeth
I didn’t expect them to be such blatant and obvious clowns, and so comically bad at politics, this quick
They’ve had FOURTEEN YEARS to prepare
Its like an actor waiting seven seasons to play Macbeth and he spends all that time diligently learning his lines until he’s word perfect and then when he finally gets the chance and he runs on stage to be Macbeth he immediately trips over, urgently vomits over himself, gabbies several stanzas of Marlowe, in Dutch, then panics and strips naked and attempts to distract the audience by sodomising a pine marten
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
The lack of excise duty of non-alcoholic beer appears to make very little difference to the price of the product.
Horrors. Pubs round here are closing fast. Which is sad but no surprise. BTW Lidl 0% beer is OK and very inexpensive. Sadly alcohol is off limits for medical reasons. My own view is that the best substitutes are 0% beer and gin/tonic. Drinks with bitterness survive the 0% regime loads better than others in terms of retaining a 'bite'. 0% Heineken has an interesting and lingering apple-like aftertaste.
if anyone ever find a 0% red wine that bears any relation to red wine, please inform! I am fairly sure it can't be done.
Heineken zero the best of the alcohol free Pils-style beers, having tried quite a few. Maybe I'll give Lidl a go.
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
We should be looking to increase the number of pensioners retiring with 500k or so, and given budget constraints that means making it harder for the pensioners retiring with 1m plus as we just can't help everyone.
And budget constraints in future might change it again, right?
Like the State pension, you need to make it predictable and leave it. The lifetime cap and allowances, as they are, incentivise people to work, save and invest here that we need.
Remember, that's doctors and professionals that drive our economy - not rich twats like Musk and Mone.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
So after 5 sun baked days in Vienna I return to the UK to find Labour are even more shite than when I left.
2 months in and they still dont know what theyre doing.
The PM’s priority this week seems to be Ticketmaster.
Now they’re a total scumbag of a company who have just given the government £30 or £40m in VAT payments, but can’t help thinking there’s more important priorities right now.
Oh, and look in the register of interests for Starmer’s tickets to a Wembley show, because it’s a 100% certainty he’ll be there and won’t have paid from his own pocket.
I thought pissing on the WWC by banning smoking was a classic Starmer wheeze.
The poor working man. All he wants is a pint and a ciggie at the end of the day (and maybe a cheeky one at lunchtime) and here comes Starmer to deny him even that.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
..you might consider laying the GOP for control of the Senate because the way the terms of Betfair market and how they treat independents who caucus with the Dems makes a Dem majority unlikely. ..
I've been saying this for a couple of weeks.
I don't understand that.
If you think a Dem majority is unlikely, why would you lay the GOP?
The Betfair terms are "Any independent senator will be added to totals of the party if they caucus/align with that Party." This helps not hinders the Dems.
The Dems need to hold Montana for 50/50 with VP Waltz having the casting vote. Dems have lost West Virginia.
Republicans are 5% ahead in the Senate poll for Montana according to RCP. It's a stretch for the DEMs. I reckon the Betfair odds are about right. 1/3 chance for the DEMs.
Because you might want to bet against a GOP majority. If would be galling to succeed in that bet, and be denied a payout because a Senator decided not to caucus with either party...
OK I see the point you are making. IF you favour the Democrats, lay the GOP instead. Safety first. In practice the new Betfair rules cover independents who caucus/align with the Democrats> Any independent senator will be added to totals of the party if they caucus/align with that Party.
"Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia caucus with the Democratic Party; independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona does not caucus with the Democrats, but is "formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes."
So after 5 sun baked days in Vienna I return to the UK to find Labour are even more shite than when I left.
2 months in and they still dont know what theyre doing.
The PM’s priority this week seems to be Ticketmaster.
Now they’re a total scumbag of a company who have just given the government £30 or £40m in VAT payments, but can’t help thinking there’s more important priorities right now.
Oh, and look in the register of interests for Starmer’s tickets to a Wembley show, because it’s a 100% certainty he’ll be there and won’t have paid from his own pocket.
I thought pissing on the WWC by banning smoking was a classic Starmer wheeze.
The poor working man. All he wants is a pint and a ciggie at the end of the day (and maybe a cheeky one at lunchtime) and here comes Starmer to deny him even that.
You sound like Michael Caine.
Grew up on a council estate. Poncy middle class wankers just like to lord it over us.
Getting rid of the double relief of £650,000 will simply cause well-advised married couples to leave up to £325,000 on a discretionary trust in their wills, on each death, which was the norm, prior to 2008. Alternatively, beneficiaries will execute post-death variations, to achieve the same result.
Extra lawyers fees though. Labour also needs to remember it now holds seats like Kensington and Bayswater, Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham, Eltham and Chislehurst, Hampstead and Kilburn, Putney, Battersea, Southgate and Wood Green, Uxbridge, Beckenham, Welwyn Hatfield, both Reading seats, both Milton Keynes seats, Hove etc all of which would be hit by removing the double relief. All of the above voted Tory in 2010 after Osborne proposed the double relief (except Hampstead which Labour held by just 42 votes) and most of the above voted Tory in 2019
It would be unpopular, without question,
The Tories aren’t going to be swept back into power any time soon just because Labour does a few unpopular things to raise money. Indeed there’s likely a payoff for being honest about our state of affairs, given that most of us can see the mess all around us.
The key is whether there’s a visible payback in five years time. Labour would do better being bold and unpopular now, and then ensuring people can see the results when it matters.
A lot of these measures will raise peanuts, but piss people off.
Starmer has none of the joie de vivre of Blair either to sell them.
Raising fuel duty is very unpopular, and even hit Blair - and more recently Macron, so I'll be interested to see how that one goes down.
Those, like the PM, who spend most of their lives living and working in central London, have no idea about either the visibility or salience of petrol prices in the rest of the country.
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
We should be looking to increase the number of pensioners retiring with 500k or so, and given budget constraints that means making it harder for the pensioners retiring with 1m plus as we just can't help everyone.
And budget constraints in future might change it again, right?
Like the State pension, you need to make it predictable and leave it. The lifetime cap and allowances, as they are, incentivise people to work, save and invest here that we need.
Remember, that's doctors and professionals that drive our economy - not rich twats like Musk and Mone.
The rules have been changed multiple times when your party was in power.
It is churlish to complain that a party that has been out of office for 14 years is now doing the same. If they tinker with it every year I will agree it is pointless. But they have been elected partly to provide greater wealth equality and that requires changes.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
The lack of excise duty of non-alcoholic beer appears to make very little difference to the price of the product.
Horrors. Pubs round here are closing fast. Which is sad but no surprise. BTW Lidl 0% beer is OK and very inexpensive. Sadly alcohol is off limits for medical reasons. My own view is that the best substitutes are 0% beer and gin/tonic. Drinks with bitterness survive the 0% regime loads better than others in terms of retaining a 'bite'. 0% Heineken has an interesting and lingering apple-like aftertaste.
if anyone ever find a 0% red wine that bears any relation to red wine, please inform! I am fairly sure it can't be done.
Heineken zero the best of the alcohol free Pils-style beers, having tried quite a few. Maybe I'll give Lidl a go.
Can recommend Adnams Ghost Ship.
You mean Ghost Ship 0.5 rather than Ghost Ship (which is 4. 5). I have no words for the incompetence of a marketing department which cannot differentiate the two better. Terrible mistakes could be made in both directions.
So after 5 sun baked days in Vienna I return to the UK to find Labour are even more shite than when I left.
2 months in and they still dont know what theyre doing.
The PM’s priority this week seems to be Ticketmaster.
Now they’re a total scumbag of a company who have just given the government £30 or £40m in VAT payments, but can’t help thinking there’s more important priorities right now.
Oh, and look in the register of interests for Starmer’s tickets to a Wembley show, because it’s a 100% certainty he’ll be there and won’t have paid from his own pocket.
I thought pissing on the WWC by banning smoking was a classic Starmer wheeze.
The poor working man. All he wants is a pint and a ciggie at the end of the day (and maybe a cheeky one at lunchtime) and here comes Starmer to deny him even that.
You sound like Michael Caine.
Grew up on a council estate. Poncy middle class wankers just like to lord it over us.
The ChiComs have adopted a policy of persecuting religions they see as non-Chinese, notably Christianity and Islam, while tolerating and even encouraging those viewed as native.
You and I have, it appears, different priorities. You care about what a few dopes say on line; I care more about, for example, the murder of Christians and Hindus in Pakistan.
They have a massive majority but are acting like they are still in opposition. Fucking do something. Ideally, today.
They should write the pledge on a megalith. “We promise to bring phone thefts down by 78% over the next four years”, “and reduce general nastiness by a third”, “and we make a solemn vow that the whole migration thing will be fine soon enough, to be sure”
Then place the megalith in a vitrine and ceremonially lower it into a shipping container on a side road need Nuneaton so we KNOW that all these things are going to happen, and they’re not just empty promises from a bunch of clueless wankers
Phome thefts coming down by 75% seems a bit numerical for an Edstone pledge. Shouldn't we have something like 'A justice system that worries phone theives more than phone theives worry the justice system'. Or 'Our text to phone theives: stop 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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
The lack of excise duty of non-alcoholic beer appears to make very little difference to the price of the product.
Horrors. Pubs round here are closing fast. Which is sad but no surprise. BTW Lidl 0% beer is OK and very inexpensive. Sadly alcohol is off limits for medical reasons. My own view is that the best substitutes are 0% beer and gin/tonic. Drinks with bitterness survive the 0% regime loads better than others in terms of retaining a 'bite'. 0% Heineken has an interesting and lingering apple-like aftertaste.
if anyone ever find a 0% red wine that bears any relation to red wine, please inform! I am fairly sure it can't be done.
Heineken zero the best of the alcohol free Pils-style beers, having tried quite a few. Maybe I'll give Lidl a go.
Brewdog do some very good low alcohol and alcohol free beers: I’m partial to Cloudy AF.
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
"As Tory leadership candidates try to appear statesmanlike it’s all kicking off behind the scenes. At a large hustings in Wiltshire on Thursday organisers thought they’d try an innocent enough ballot of members at the end of proceedings to see who impressed attendees most – the results would be published online. They couldn’t even manage that…
Sources from one leadership team say they observed two others – predicted to do badly – aggressively “stuffing ballots.” Another leadership team says their people were entitled to a single vote and delivered it accordingly. Guido is unable to confirm names either way but suffice to say everyone’s accusing everyone…
CCHQ representatives had to be dragged into the debacle and suggested after much complaining that the straw poll be abandoned completely. Student politics at its finest – no wonder voters think the Tories are weird now…"
In the Seattle area, there are a number of Russian Baptist churches. As I understand it, they were persecuted by the czars, by Stalin, and now by Putin. But they seem to be mostly left alone, here. (Though I wouldn't advise them to apply for a job with, for example, Google.)
Last Friday, I encountered several Jehovah Witness women offering pamphlets -- in Russian. The Witnesses are regulars just outside the local library, but this is the first time I have seen the Russian versions of their literature.
(I have known Witnesses all my life. To say the least, I don't share their theology, but the ones I have met have all been good people, willing to live in peace with others.)
I've no idea which religious followers are the most persecuted in the world, but it was a comment on rightwing US twitterers getting excited about all the churches in France getting burned down, when I suspect the same people haven't been that bothered attacks on black churches much closer to home.
Also your examples: Christianity is really not the only religion persecuted in China, so far as I know they aren't singled out though proselytising and "foreign influence" are hit hard.
I think the "which is the most persecuted" is perhaps a secondary question, except maybe in the examination of particular circumstances or places. The more important thing is always imo the existence of any persecution at all.
Governments like China (are) and Soviet (were) frightened because they saw religion as a competitor to their political state religion. At University one of my housemates went on a student exchange to Leningrad (mid-1980s) for 6 weeks iirc, and attended the main Baptist Church whilst he was there. At the time Bradford Uni was the only one in the country doing it, for 12 students each year.
Persecuted - certainly, but by that time "pressurised" may be a better word for teh general community. Things like poorer jobs, no access to Higher Education, the church being spied upon. That's a step down from concentration camps, show trials, internal exile, and being sent to mental hospitals which was earlier (Breznnev) but was still gong on in the early 1980s, and more vicious the further you go back.
There was also a difference between if you kept quiet to survive, or tried to publish / proselytise. And in some measure between groups - eg RCs always had more external support as an historic religion for centuries and the Vatican in the UN. Anglicans also did better because of imperial history, an example is that Anglicans tend to own buildings in various countries (eg Middle East) and often host umpteen other congregations who are not allowed to do so.
In China imo Muslims have it harder now, to the extent of internationally-recognised genocide. The Govt there tried to suborn the churches by setting up their own version called "Three-Selves Patriotic Movement".
It's fair to say that JWs were very targeted in Soviet times, as they were by Hitler. Part of that is because they were seen as American-derived, therefore traitors.
There's a whole mini-literature around things like Bible-smuggling.
For anyone interested my book recommendation would be "Grey is the Colour of Hope" by Irina Ratushinskaya, who was a Ukrainian poet sentenced to 5 years in a labour camp then 7 years in internal exile in Russia in 1983 for "anti-Soviet agitation". With pressure and attention, she was released after 3.5 years. She wrote religious poetry. It's one of the most affecting books I have ever read.
"As Tory leadership candidates try to appear statesmanlike it’s all kicking off behind the scenes. At a large hustings in Wiltshire on Thursday organisers thought they’d try an innocent enough ballot of members at the end of proceedings to see who impressed attendees most – the results would be published online. They couldn’t even manage that…
Sources from one leadership team say they observed two others – predicted to do badly – aggressively “stuffing ballots.” Another leadership team says their people were entitled to a single vote and delivered it accordingly. Guido is unable to confirm names either way but suffice to say everyone’s accusing everyone…
CCHQ representatives had to be dragged into the debacle and suggested after much complaining that the straw poll be abandoned completely. Student politics at its finest – no wonder voters think the Tories are weird now…"
They are not particularly weird. Just dim, incompetent and overly ambitious for their "talents". Very common in middle management, just less suited to running the country.
"As Tory leadership candidates try to appear statesmanlike it’s all kicking off behind the scenes. At a large hustings in Wiltshire on Thursday organisers thought they’d try an innocent enough ballot of members at the end of proceedings to see who impressed attendees most – the results would be published online. They couldn’t even manage that…
Sources from one leadership team say they observed two others – predicted to do badly – aggressively “stuffing ballots.” Another leadership team says their people were entitled to a single vote and delivered it accordingly. Guido is unable to confirm names either way but suffice to say everyone’s accusing everyone…
CCHQ representatives had to be dragged into the debacle and suggested after much complaining that the straw poll be abandoned completely. Student politics at its finest – no wonder voters think the Tories are weird now…"
They are not particularly weird. Just dim, incompetent and overly ambitious for their "talents". Very common in middle management, just less suited to running the country.
Given our recent national experience, any reason to expect anything else?
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
It was a huge mistake by Labour to tie themselves so tightly to the “no NI, income tax or VAT rises” mast.
Now they’re forced to grovel around in the nether regions of the tax system, inevitably worsening existing economic distortions, just to get us back the point we should have been at had the Conservative government not spent every penny in the emergency kitty on pointless culture war wheezes like the Rwanda project.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes 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?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
The responsibilities for changes in pride in how British democracy works (69 to 53) and economic achievements (57 to 44) are probably easier to allocate.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
I would abolish inheritance tax altogether - and then tax all inheritances as income instead.
If someone received a £600k house as an inheritance they should pay the same rate of tax on that as someone who receives £600k in wages from their employer.
Being paid for working should not be taxed more than any other reason you get paid, including inheriting money.
"As Tory leadership candidates try to appear statesmanlike it’s all kicking off behind the scenes. At a large hustings in Wiltshire on Thursday organisers thought they’d try an innocent enough ballot of members at the end of proceedings to see who impressed attendees most – the results would be published online. They couldn’t even manage that…
Sources from one leadership team say they observed two others – predicted to do badly – aggressively “stuffing ballots.” Another leadership team says their people were entitled to a single vote and delivered it accordingly. Guido is unable to confirm names either way but suffice to say everyone’s accusing everyone…
CCHQ representatives had to be dragged into the debacle and suggested after much complaining that the straw poll be abandoned completely. Student politics at its finest – no wonder voters think the Tories are weird now…"
Getting rid of the double relief of £650,000 will simply cause well-advised married couples to leave up to £325,000 on a discretionary trust in their wills, on each death, which was the norm, prior to 2008. Alternatively, beneficiaries will execute post-death variations, to achieve the same result.
Extra lawyers fees though. Labour also needs to remember it now holds seats like Kensington and Bayswater, Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham, Eltham and Chislehurst, Hampstead and Kilburn, Putney, Battersea, Southgate and Wood Green, Uxbridge, Beckenham, Welwyn Hatfield, both Reading seats, both Milton Keynes seats, Hove etc all of which would be hit by removing the double relief. All of the above voted Tory in 2010 after Osborne proposed the double relief (except Hampstead which Labour held by just 42 votes) and most of the above voted Tory in 2019
It would be unpopular, without question,
The Tories aren’t going to be swept back into power any time soon just because Labour does a few unpopular things to raise money. Indeed there’s likely a payoff for being honest about our state of affairs, given that most of us can see the mess all around us.
The key is whether there’s a visible payback in five years time. Labour would do better being bold and unpopular now, and then ensuring people can see the results when it matters.
A lot of these measures will raise peanuts, but piss people off.
Starmer has none of the joie de vivre of Blair either to sell them.
Raising fuel duty is very unpopular, and even hit Blair - and more recently Macron, so I'll be interested to see how that one goes down.
Those, like the PM, who spend most of their lives living and working in central London, have no idea about either the visibility or salience of petrol prices in the rest of the country.
My experience is that petrol prices are very visible and salient when they're going up, yes even here in the big city where us out of touch untermenschen live, and then suddenly become invisible and unremarked when they're going down.
I remember when diesel was at least 20p cheaper in France than the UK. First thing I'd do when arriving at Calais was fill up the car. Now it's the other way round. That's down to Macron plus a succession of cowardly British politicians. But good luck to anyone who wants to reinstate the fuel duty escalator (or even reverse the "temporary" (lol) cut in duty introduced during the fuel price crisis). It'll be lorries at the ports and people in hi vis on roundabouts before you can say PM2.5
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes 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?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
Most of your students live within a few hundred meters of the school?
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes 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?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
Wales are doing initiatives around walking to school, which are worth watching.
I do agree Jas Athwal's behaviour has been appalling and it doesn't matter what political party you support, landlords have a responsibility to ensure their tenants (who are paying for the privilege of living in your accommodation) are living in conditions which are at the very least suitable for human habitation and if there are problems, it is the landlord's responsibility to ensure prompt resolution.
There is a place for a strong, well-regulated private rental sector - not everyone wants to or can aspire to be a homeowner. Renting suits some people and it must be an integral part of an overall housing framework.
I'd also say a lot of private landlords are entirely respectable individuals who do a lot for their tenants and it must be frustrating for them when tenants don't pay or cause damage to their property. However, it's also calear there are landlords who don't live up to the standards imposed by the law and by local authorities and while the forced dispersal of their properties might be draconian, it might be an answer for those who persistently refuse to improve, repair or adequately maintain their rental portfolio.
I'd also have a much stronger public rental sector either but that ship has probably sailed.
I also find it instinctively unjust that his tenants can't complain to their local MP for obvious reasons. I don't think there's anything to be done about it, banning people with significant property holdings in a particular constituency from standing there doesn't seem right either.
I’m in a Montenegrin skiing town. Yes. They exist. And they’re as weird as you’d expect - very very weird
I might go to ultra-sophisticated “La Manche” lounge bar. Just over the road from one of the 9 betting shops that all have swaying men on crutches lurking outside with a whiff of rajka plum brandy
And yet at the same time there are a couple of chic modern buildings and some very flash cars. Montenegro is like Armenia with a massive unexpected inheritance: tourism
And the landscapes can be spectacular. Like Utah meets Dartmoor
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes 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?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
Most of your students live within a few hundred meters of the school?
That's a pretty niche catchment area you have!
Some do, but I was referring to the idea that they can be picked up by parents from the side of the road rather than all trying to crowd into the staff car park.
Edit: the parents do the crowding I mean, not the pupils!
So after 5 sun baked days in Vienna I return to the UK to find Labour are even more shite than when I left.
2 months in and they still dont know what theyre doing.
5 days? Can you imagine how we are all going to feel after 5 years?! 😡😡😡
The principal complaint by Tories on this board about the Labour government so far seems to be that they're a Labour government. That's fair enough, Ed Miliband spent 5 years complaining that the Tories were Tories from 2010 to 2015. Which certainly caused damage, though mainly to the Lib Dems.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes 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?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
It's weird how the rules on admissions still use the expectation that kids will walk 2 miles to school (3 if over 8 I think), when most parents would not dream of that. A lot apparently don't let kids walk to school until they are in secondary school.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
The lack of excise duty of non-alcoholic beer appears to make very little difference to the price of the product.
Horrors. Pubs round here are closing fast. Which is sad but no surprise. BTW Lidl 0% beer is OK and very inexpensive. Sadly alcohol is off limits for medical reasons. My own view is that the best substitutes are 0% beer and gin/tonic. Drinks with bitterness survive the 0% regime loads better than others in terms of retaining a 'bite'. 0% Heineken has an interesting and lingering apple-like aftertaste.
if anyone ever find a 0% red wine that bears any relation to red wine, please inform! I am fairly sure it can't be done.
Heineken zero the best of the alcohol free Pils-style beers, having tried quite a few. Maybe I'll give Lidl a go.
Brewdog do some very good low alcohol and alcohol free beers: I’m partial to Cloudy AF.
Adnams Ghost Ship 0.5% is good. A pub near us does Butcombe Goram IPA Zero on draught and that's pretty good too.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
The responsibilities for changes in pride in how British democracy works (69 to 53) and economic achievements (57 to 44) are probably easier to allocate.
Yes good spot. Part of what we might term the 'decaying public realm' under what's probably been the worst decade of government in modern times.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes 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?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
Wales are doing initiatives around walking to school, which are worth watching.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
Most people know nothing about the Royal Navy's battle with the slave trade these days. I studied 19th century history at A level and it was barely touched upon. There's a whole Youtube video genre of people reacting to an account of what happened with astonishment.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes 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?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
Wales are doing initiatives around walking to school, which are worth watching.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes 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?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
Most of your students live within a few hundred meters of the school?
That's a pretty niche catchment area you have!
Some do, but I was referring to the idea that they can be picked up by parents from the side of the road rather than all trying to crowd into the staff car park.
Edit: the parents do the crowding I mean, not the pupils!
It was a joke.
I always park down a side street near the kids school when I pick them up or drop them off at school time, never parked in the staff car park and never seen anyone do so. Insane for people to try to do that.
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
“I do think there are a number of things that we can do and we should do, because otherwise you get to the situation where families simply can’t go, or are absolutely spending a fortune on tickets, whatever it may be.
“So we’ll grip this and make sure that actually tickets are available at a price that people can actually afford.”
The people most ripped off by the resale shenanigans are probably the band.
If someone wants to pay £300 to listen to Liam phoning it in then that's up to them.
Is he going to insist on seats for league games being £10 at the Emirates as well?
I thought this kind of stupid soundbite would stop now they are actually in government. Apparently not.
I thought the problem was the escalating prices as the number of tickets reduced, not resale?
The ticket companies and artists both hate resale anyway - unless it is resale via them.
Some ticket companies have made their ticket electronic and non-transferable. So all you can do is sell them back to the company. At the original price . Minus the “handling fees”. The ticket company then resells at a higher price…
I thought some ticket companies had links to brokers that often manage to acquire "resale" tickets in bulk?
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
Nationalise the stills, and introduce Victory Gin.
'...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Keir Starmer.'
I've just bought a Starmer badge from the online Labour shop. It's him in a plain white shirt, no tie, neat hair, studious normcore glasses, looking directly at camera with the most solid sensible expression you've ever seen in your life. Over the picture is the single word CHANGE. There's absolutely nothing not to like about it. No rip-off pricing either (Gallaghers take note). At £3.50 it's 10p less than you'd pay for a Tesco meal deal.
POINT OF ORDER:
Without a ClubCard, a Tesco Meal Deal is actually £4.00!
I do agree Jas Athwal's behaviour has been appalling and it doesn't matter what political party you support, landlords have a responsibility to ensure their tenants (who are paying for the privilege of living in your accommodation) are living in conditions which are at the very least suitable for human habitation and if there are problems, it is the landlord's responsibility to ensure prompt resolution.
There is a place for a strong, well-regulated private rental sector - not everyone wants to or can aspire to be a homeowner. Renting suits some people and it must be an integral part of an overall housing framework.
I'd also say a lot of private landlords are entirely respectable individuals who do a lot for their tenants and it must be frustrating for them when tenants don't pay or cause damage to their property. However, it's also calear there are landlords who don't live up to the standards imposed by the law and by local authorities and while the forced dispersal of their properties might be draconian, it might be an answer for those who persistently refuse to improve, repair or adequately maintain their rental portfolio.
I'd also have a much stronger public rental sector either but that ship has probably sailed.
One problem there is that there is zero guarantee that any public rental sector will be better than the private sector. If you work in the Housing Dept of a local authority you get to hear a lot of horror stories, and similarly if you talk to Council Tenants.
I have had Ts who have been in private rentals because they don't like their lives being micromanaged by bureaucrats.
LL regulation has come a huge way since 2000, but there are all kinds of tenant-undermining messes in it, often because charities and politicians are more concerned with doing down LLs than helping Ts, and Councils always insert all sorts of stuff into their regulation that they do not have legal powers to put there. An example is that always want to use LLs to police and control tenant behaviour, but there are provisions in eg the Protection from Harrassment Act 1977 that are aimed exactly at preventing LLs doing that.
I've been trying to crunch out a header with some renting and political reflections on our landlord MP but it needs to be 800 not 6000 words !
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
We should be looking to increase the number of pensioners retiring with 500k or so, and given budget constraints that means making it harder for the pensioners retiring with 1m plus as we just can't help everyone.
And budget constraints in future might change it again, right?
Like the State pension, you need to make it predictable and leave it. The lifetime cap and allowances, as they are, incentivise people to work, save and invest here that we need.
Remember, that's doctors and professionals that drive our economy - not rich twats like Musk and Mone.
The rules have been changed multiple times when your party was in power.
It is churlish to complain that a party that has been out of office for 14 years is now doing the same. If they tinker with it every year I will agree it is pointless. But they have been elected partly to provide greater wealth equality and that requires changes.
If you could pull your head out of your arse for just one second you'll see that my original post said, and I quote: "If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year."
That includes yours.
What they think they've got a mandate for, and what they actually asked for a mandate on, are two very decidedly different things.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
Most people know nothing about the Royal Navy's battle with the slave trade these days. I studied 19th century history at A level and it was barely touched upon. There's a whole Youtube video genre of people reacting to an account of what happened with astonishment.
I studied maths at O Level. I was an absolute wizard at questions like Which is the larger number: 3,200,000 or 150,000?
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
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...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
We should be looking to increase the number of pensioners retiring with 500k or so, and given budget constraints that means making it harder for the pensioners retiring with 1m plus as we just can't help everyone.
And budget constraints in future might change it again, right?
Like the State pension, you need to make it predictable and leave it. The lifetime cap and allowances, as they are, incentivise people to work, save and invest here that we need.
Remember, that's doctors and professionals that drive our economy - not rich twats like Musk and Mone.
The rules have been changed multiple times when your party was in power.
It is churlish to complain that a party that has been out of office for 14 years is now doing the same. If they tinker with it every year I will agree it is pointless. But they have been elected partly to provide greater wealth equality and that requires changes.
If you could pull your head out of your arse for just one second you'll see that my original post said, and I quote: "If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year."
That includes yours.
What they think they've got a mandate for, and what they actually asked for a mandate on, are two very decidedly different things.
We're taxed enough already on going out to work for a living.
We should lower taxes on people going to work by equalising taxes on people who earn money via alternative methods
It should not matter whether you earn a salary, or money from letting homes, or money through an inheritance, or money from any other method - the tax rate should be the same and ideally less than it is right now for people working for a living.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
The responsibilities for changes in pride in how British democracy works (69 to 53) and economic achievements (57 to 44) are probably easier to allocate.
Indeed. Those who spent three years trying to undo the June 2016 vote of the people have an awful lot to answer for.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
I would abolish inheritance tax altogether - and then tax all inheritances as income instead.
If someone received a £600k house as an inheritance they should pay the same rate of tax on that as someone who receives £600k in wages from their employer.
Being paid for working should not be taxed more than any other reason you get paid, including inheriting money.
Someone inheriting a £600K house in most cases won't pay any inheritance tax at all, which makes the whole uproar about it a nonsense. A scheme where you pay a lower rate on the whole value of the estate seems sensible.
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
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
My predictions:
Pension tax relief at 20% only, annual allowance reduced to £30,000pa, no return to lifetime allowance as they don't want to upset their public sector friends with their huge fully indexed pensions
IHT: reductions of reliefs only, no increase in rates, maybe get rid of the double availability of the £325,000 between spouses
IT: no increase but personal allowance frozen further to 2029 'end of parliament '
CGT: move towards IT levels, probably not all the way
The surprise: a new levy like Health and Social Care levy also known as Rachel's Redistribution Revenue 2% on all income to pay for bigger public sector salaries sorry I mean sort out the NHS
👿
Re IHT allowance between spouses - See @Sean_F post plus long discussion on last thread.
It is easy to avoid this in your will so has no impact other than making some peoples lives a bit more complicated and earning lawyers a small fee from lots of people (which I think we all agree is not a good thing )
Also as @hyufd points out it will be extremely unpopular to do. I don't know why, but it really is. See the battle between and Labour and the Tories previously when they tried to outdo one another over IHT allowances.
As I said earlier - me predicting it won't happen almost certainly means it will.
It's possible my predictions might be wrong too! 😊
I forgot. Duty on beer up well ahead of inflation. LAB don't like pubs they prefer dinner parties with expensive wine
Don't think so - us lefties like our pint, and the price of beer in pubs is already outrageous.
More likely: fags £100 for 20, so that nobody can afford to smoke in pub gardens any more. Problem solved.
Things that only affect people in Lib Dem / Tory marginals.
- Land tax on rugby grounds - stained glass tax on cathedrals - New higher VAT rate on Gail’s Bakery and Ivy outlets - Orchard and vineyard levy - Excise duty hike on cider
Excise duty at double rate on non alcoholic gin?
Nationalise the stills, and introduce Victory Gin.
'...the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Keir Starmer.'
I've just bought a Starmer badge from the online Labour shop. It's him in a plain white shirt, no tie, neat hair, studious normcore glasses, looking directly at camera with the most solid sensible expression you've ever seen in your life. Over the picture is the single word CHANGE. There's absolutely nothing not to like about it. No rip-off pricing either (Gallaghers take note). At £3.50 it's 10p less than you'd pay for a Tesco meal deal.
POINT OF ORDER:
Without a ClubCard, a Tesco Meal Deal is actually £4.00!
That's true. But I have a ClubCard. Guard it with my life.
Comments
2 months in and they still dont know what theyre doing.
This is the problem with road pricing though. There's not always a choice and someone is bound to be unfairly penalised. Before long you've got demands for exceptions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/five-children-arrested-over-murder-80-year-old-man-in-leicestershire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GMtwmNfI2A
If the Chief Rabbi believe the sanction to have gone too far and Amnesty International, not far enough, it looks about right to me.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
If would be galling to succeed in that bet, and be denied a payout because a Senator decided not to caucus with either party...
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
Raising fuel duty is very unpopular, and even hit Blair - and more recently Macron, so I'll be interested to see how that one goes down.
Now they’re a total scumbag of a company who have just given the government £30 or £40m in VAT payments, but can’t help thinking there’s more important priorities right now.
Oh, and look in the register of interests for Starmer’s tickets to a Wembley show, because it’s a 100% certainty he’ll be there and won’t have paid from his own pocket.
There is a place for a strong, well-regulated private rental sector - not everyone wants to or can aspire to be a homeowner. Renting suits some people and it must be an integral part of an overall housing framework.
I'd also say a lot of private landlords are entirely respectable individuals who do a lot for their tenants and it must be frustrating for them when tenants don't pay or cause damage to their property. However, it's also calear there are landlords who don't live up to the standards imposed by the law and by local authorities and while the forced dispersal of their properties might be draconian, it might be an answer for those who persistently refuse to improve, repair or adequately maintain their rental portfolio.
I'd also have a much stronger public rental sector either but that ship has probably sailed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c207j6wy332o
If someone wants to pay £300 to listen to Liam phoning it in then that's up to them.
Is he going to insist on seats for league games being £10 at the Emirates as well?
I thought this kind of stupid soundbite would stop now they are actually in government. Apparently not.
Royals favouring Labour, the shame.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1830983480387477933
This is the week campaigns are supposed to start in earnest, traditionally.
The ticket companies and artists both hate resale anyway - unless it is resale via them.
Some ticket companies have made their ticket electronic and non-transferable. So all you can do is sell them back to the company. At the original price . Minus the “handling fees”. The ticket company then resells at a higher price…
Then place the megalith in a vitrine and ceremonially lower it into a shipping container on a side road need Nuneaton so we KNOW that all
these things are going to happen, and they’re not just empty promises from a bunch of clueless wankers
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
On further investigation on 538 I see there are five polls since July 1st>
GOP (Sheehy) leads of 5,2,6,-5 and 7.
Average 3.0 compared with RCP's 5.0.
It doesn't materially alter my conclusion. Sheehy's to lose. Likely 51/49 GOP Senate but 50/50 is definitely possible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rx2xvj237o
1st Lt. Jimmy McCain, son of Sen. John McCain, tells
@NatashaBertrand
Trump's visit to Arlington "was a violation."
Those who have spent time in uniform "understand...that it’s not about you there. It’s about these people who gave the ultimate sacrifice."
https://x.com/halbritz/status/1831002800160964667
I always knew there was a risk they’d be dismal. I voted with gritted teeth
I didn’t expect them to be such blatant and obvious clowns, and so comically bad at politics, this quick
They’ve had FOURTEEN YEARS to prepare
Its like an actor waiting seven seasons to play Macbeth and he spends all that time diligently learning his lines until he’s word perfect and then when he finally gets the chance and he runs on stage to be Macbeth he immediately trips over, urgently vomits over himself, gabbies several stanzas of Marlowe, in Dutch, then panics and strips naked and attempts to distract the audience by sodomising a pine marten
Like the State pension, you need to make it predictable and leave it. The lifetime cap and allowances, as they are, incentivise people to work, save and invest here that we need.
Remember, that's doctors and professionals that drive our economy - not rich twats like Musk and Mone.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/national-pride-falls-as-britain-redefines-itself-3sdtq979t
You sound like Michael Caine.
20 years of telling Brits “your country is evil and racist and if you’re a white Briton you’re a Nazi and
no mistake” has actually had an effect
In practice the new Betfair rules cover independents who caucus/align with the Democrats>
Any independent senator will be added to totals of the party if they caucus/align with that Party.
"Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia caucus with the Democratic Party; independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona does not caucus with the Democrats, but is "formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes."
It is churlish to complain that a party that has been out of office for 14 years is now doing the same. If they tinker with it every year I will agree it is pointless. But they have been elected partly to provide greater wealth equality and that requires changes.
5). I have no words for the incompetence of a marketing department which cannot differentiate the two better. Terrible mistakes could be made in both directions.
2. Evangelicals do care about attacks on black churches, for example: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/20/attacks-on-us-churches-more-than-doubled-in-2023-f/
3. Which have become rarer, judging by this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_African-American_churches
The ChiComs have adopted a policy of persecuting religions they see as non-Chinese, notably Christianity and Islam, while tolerating and even encouraging those viewed as native.
You and I have, it appears, different priorities. You care about what a few dopes say on line; I care more about, for example, the murder of Christians and Hindus in Pakistan.
I’m partial to Cloudy AF.
40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate.
Make it the same at say 25%.
"As Tory leadership candidates try to appear statesmanlike it’s all kicking off behind the scenes. At a large hustings in Wiltshire on Thursday organisers thought they’d try an innocent enough ballot of members at the end of proceedings to see who impressed attendees most – the results would be published online. They couldn’t even manage that…
Sources from one leadership team say they observed two others – predicted to do badly – aggressively “stuffing ballots.” Another leadership team says their people were entitled to a single vote and delivered it accordingly. Guido is unable to confirm names either way but suffice to say everyone’s accusing everyone…
CCHQ representatives had to be dragged into the debacle and suggested after much complaining that the straw poll be abandoned completely. Student politics at its finest – no wonder voters think the Tories are weird now…"
https://order-order.com/2024/09/03/tory-hustings-descends-into-farce-as-teams-accused-of-ballot-stuffing/
Governments like China (are) and Soviet (were) frightened because they saw religion as a competitor to their political state religion. At University one of my housemates went on a student exchange to Leningrad (mid-1980s) for 6 weeks iirc, and attended the main Baptist Church whilst he was there. At the time Bradford Uni was the only one in the country doing it, for 12 students each year.
Persecuted - certainly, but by that time "pressurised" may be a better word for teh general community. Things like poorer jobs, no access to Higher Education, the church being spied upon. That's a step down from concentration camps, show trials, internal exile, and being sent to mental hospitals which was earlier (Breznnev) but was still gong on in the early 1980s, and more vicious the further you go back.
There was also a difference between if you kept quiet to survive, or tried to publish / proselytise. And in some measure between groups - eg RCs always had more external support as an historic religion for centuries and the Vatican in the UN. Anglicans also did better because of imperial history, an example is that Anglicans tend to own buildings in various countries (eg Middle East) and often host umpteen other congregations who are not allowed to do so.
In China imo Muslims have it harder now, to the extent of internationally-recognised genocide. The Govt there tried to suborn the churches by setting up their own version called "Three-Selves Patriotic Movement".
It's fair to say that JWs were very targeted in Soviet times, as they were by Hitler. Part of that is because they were seen as American-derived, therefore traitors.
There's a whole mini-literature around things like Bible-smuggling.
For anyone interested my book recommendation would be "Grey is the Colour of Hope" by Irina Ratushinskaya, who was a Ukrainian poet sentenced to 5 years in a labour camp then 7 years in internal exile in Russia in 1983 for "anti-Soviet agitation". With pressure and attention, she was released after 3.5 years. She wrote religious poetry. It's one of the most affecting books I have ever read.
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Ratushinskaya
Book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grey-Colour-Hope-Irina-Ratushinskaya/dp/1473637228
It's worth a note that persecution has always been as intense, or worse, in parts of the Islamic world.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
Now they’re forced to grovel around in the nether regions of the tax system, inevitably worsening existing economic distortions, just to get us back the point we should have been at had the Conservative government not spent every penny in the emergency kitty on pointless culture war wheezes like the Rwanda project.
If someone received a £600k house as an inheritance they should pay the same rate of tax on that as someone who receives £600k in wages from their employer.
Being paid for working should not be taxed more than any other reason you get paid, including inheriting money.
I remember when diesel was at least 20p cheaper in France than the UK. First thing I'd do when arriving at Calais was fill up the car. Now it's the other way round. That's down to Macron plus a succession of cowardly British politicians. But good luck to anyone who wants to reinstate the fuel duty escalator (or even reverse the "temporary" (lol) cut in duty introduced during the fuel price crisis). It'll be lorries at the ports and people in hi vis on roundabouts before you can say PM2.5
That's a pretty niche catchment area you have!
I might go to ultra-sophisticated “La Manche” lounge bar. Just over the road from one of the 9 betting shops that all have swaying men on crutches lurking outside with a whiff of rajka plum
brandy
And yet at the same time there are a couple of chic modern buildings and some very flash cars. Montenegro is like Armenia with a massive unexpected inheritance: tourism
And the landscapes can be spectacular. Like Utah meets Dartmoor
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
3h
This amateur sleuthing on the Letby case is insane. She is bang to rights.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1830956852181639459
Edit: the parents do the crowding I mean, not the pupils!
By Party Support...
🌹 Labour
Harris: 64% (+44)
Trump: 20%
🌳 Conservative
Harris: 57% (+34)
Trump: 23%
➡️ Reform
Trump: 58% (+32)
Harris: 26%
🔶 Lib Dem
Harris: 74% (+58)
Trump: 16%
https://nitter.poast.org/ElectionMapsUK/status/1830931139676049574#m
I always park down a side street near the kids school when I pick them up or drop them off at school time, never parked in the staff car park and never seen anyone do so. Insane for people to try to do that.
Maybe not in this case.
Without a ClubCard, a Tesco Meal Deal is actually £4.00!
I have had Ts who have been in private rentals because they don't like their lives being micromanaged by bureaucrats.
LL regulation has come a huge way since 2000, but there are all kinds of tenant-undermining messes in it, often because charities and politicians are more concerned with doing down LLs than helping Ts, and Councils always insert all sorts of stuff into their regulation that they do not have legal powers to put there. An example is that always want to use LLs to police and control tenant behaviour, but there are provisions in eg the Protection from Harrassment Act 1977 that are aimed exactly at preventing LLs doing that.
I've been trying to crunch out a header with some renting and political reflections on our landlord MP but it needs to be 800 not 6000 words !
That includes yours.
What they think they've got a mandate for, and what they actually asked for a mandate on, are two very decidedly different things.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
We should lower taxes on people going to work by equalising taxes on people who earn money via alternative methods
It should not matter whether you earn a salary, or money from letting homes, or money through an inheritance, or money from any other method - the tax rate should be the same and ideally less than it is right now for people working for a living.