On the WFA, it seems to me to be utterly implausible that Starmer and Reeves didn't realise that its withdrawal would be deeply unpopular with many people, and of course with the Tory press. So isn't it just possible that they did it anyway because they thought it was the right thing to do? Haven't we had enough of government policies enacted solely to court popularity?
If that was really the case wouldn’t they have prepared better lines to take?
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
Yes, a stupid way to fill the void over the summer and before the budget.
Stuff does seem to be happening on delivery though, largely under the radar as the right wing press isn't interested in the dull grind. While the hospital sector looks to be on a shoestring budget in anticipation of a tough winter, we do seem to be making progress on waiting lists etc with a renewed sense of purpose.
Maybe it is just my Trust, but things seem to be happening elsewhere too. My dad is 89 in Hants and commencing treatment this week just 3 weeks from NHS referral, having seen the Consultant last week. It's a characteristic of our society that we focus on the problems and take real progress for granted.
Progress that was happening anyway and has absolutely nothing to do with Labour in office.
I think we need a benchmark on that, and to set an expectation.
It's fair to say that Sunak and friends made progress on reducing the outliers on the waiting lists (> 2 year etc) since Covid, and I have praised them for that a number of times, but under their Government only marginal progress was made on the mass of the lists.
Here is the BMA analysis covering up to approximately mid-2024, with totals banded by waiting time.
I suggest the for Mr Starmer to be getting a decent political narrative from this, that total needs to be coming down by 500k+ per annum, with quarterly falls of 100k+.
Three of the known unknowns are a) the number of people who held off asking for treatment during Covid, who will now appear out of the woodwork, and b) the reductions in potential demand from people who died during Covid, and have left the building (so to speak, with apologies to Elvis), and c) The extra demand generated by effects and after-effects of Covid, such as long-Covid.
On the WFA, it seems to me to be utterly implausible that Starmer and Reeves didn't realise that its withdrawal would be deeply unpopular with many people, and of course with the Tory press. So isn't it just possible that they did it anyway because they thought it was the right thing to do? Haven't we had enough of government policies enacted solely to court popularity?
Quite right Al. Get the right things to do that are unpopular out of the way at the start.
I have a friend of mine who lives in Hendon (a staunch Brexiteer) and drives past every year to see what's going on and gently encourage them to get a life. He said they were 100% white, earnest, all over 55 years old, and all very sad people.
Do you not get the irony. What you friend does must be the very definition of sad. He is as bad or worse than the sad people handing out the flags.
Not sure about that. What's worse: "Let's try to irritate people!" or "Let's complain at people who are deliberately irritating people!". The second seems a but sad but the first is the action of a Grade A wanker.
Though if people are trying to irritate you, showing how incredibly irritated you are is only going to encourage them
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
That’s a bit of a selective quote. I think it’s quite clear in the context of my post that I meant in connection with the fiscal situation the government finds itself in. Of course it saves money. But it’s a drop in the ocean of government spend, for the political capital they have spent in going about removing it in the way they have.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
Yes, well done LuckyG. The solution for Casino ought to be obvious - offer free Union flags on the other side of the door.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan (although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I think people are largely joking about Reeves's golden legacy, 11 weeks of labour misrule etc. But what the fuck is wrong with Starmer? I am a reasonably well off lawyer. If anyone offered to buy me or my wife thousands of pounds worth of clothes or some nice wallpaper I would tell them to fuck off. Who who can afford their own clothes and wallpaper would not? Who wants to be governed by the sort of person who says yes please?
Maybe this is why politicians like Starmer don't really understand pensioners who don't want to apply for pension credit because they don't want handouts. With the consequence that he and Reeves may (jury out for a bit yet) have trashed their reputations over WFA, which is fine as a handout to the proud poor exactly because we all get it.
Politics is hard, but this is a truly unforced error. Labour can't afford to give the impression it is down on the proud poor.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
That’s a bit of a selective quote. I think it’s quite clear in the context of my post that I meant in connection with the fiscal situation the government finds itself in. Of course it saves money. But it’s a drop in the ocean of government spend, for the political capital they have spent in going about removing it in the way they have.
Again you are being absurd, £7.5 billion is far more than a drop in the ocean.
0.125% of annual government expenditure is not a drop in the ocean, to compare to the Atlantic ocean 388k km^3 of water or 388,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml of water.
"I don't know anything about that" is Trump's favourite deflection. See also Project 25, or the collection of actual fascists and avowed Nazis who support him.
Reporter: Do you denounce the bomb threats in Springfield?
Trump: I don't know what happened with the bomb threats. I know that it's been taken over by illegal migrants, and that's a terrible thing that happened. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1835084514563178878
And, of course, legal migrants. Whom he's said he will use Presidential powers to deport en masse.
If this were just the ravings of an old man, it might be laughable. But his team who would form his administration, and his VP, are entirely on board with the ravings.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan (although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I think people are largely joking about Reeves's golden legacy, 11 weeks of labour misrule etc. But what the fuck is wrong with Starmer? I am a reasonably well off lawyer. If anyone offered to buy me or my wife thousands of pounds worth of clothes or some nice wallpaper I would tell them to fuck off. Who who can afford their own clothes and wallpaper would not? Who wants to be governed by the sort of person who says yes please?
Maybe this is why politicians like Starmer don't really understand pensioners who don't want to apply for pension credit because they don't want handouts. With the consequence that he and Reeves may (jury out for a bit yet) have trashed their reputations over WFA, which is fine as a handout to the proud poor exactly because we all get it.
Politics is hard, but this is a truly unforced error. Labour can't afford to give the impression it is down on the proud poor.
The 'proud' feeling's understandable. It's noteworthy that 'poor' people as a whole give more to charity than wealthier ones, at least as a proportion of their income.
It's probably a really bad time to bet on Harris right now.
Wait for the post debate glow to fade. There are still nearly 2 months to go.
A reminder that voting starts tomorrow (for overseas voters) and later this month for in-person voting in several states.
I agree with @SouthamObserver that Trump remains favourite based entirely on personal perception (as opposed to stats) of the economy and the (Trump fuelled) Dem. immigration crisis. It beats me how it could even be close. "Anyone but Trump" should be miles ahead.
What is more baffling are key Tories and educated PBers shilling for Trump, particularly strange for PB Trumpers to be batting for the Orange One when the entire readership of PB accounts for probably less than half a dozen votes in the election.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
That’s a bit of a selective quote. I think it’s quite clear in the context of my post that I meant in connection with the fiscal situation the government finds itself in. Of course it saves money. But it’s a drop in the ocean of government spend, for the political capital they have spent in going about removing it in the way they have.
Again you are being absurd, £7.5 billion is far more than a drop in the ocean.
0.125% of annual government expenditure is not a drop in the ocean, to compare to the Atlantic ocean 388k km^3 of water or 388,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml of water.
Seems like plenty of drops to me.
With respect, I've explained the context in which I made the post, which is that compared to other fiscal measures and difficult choices the government makes, this is a small one to be fighting your first significant political battle over, from a tactical perspective. I'm not going to get into an argument about what constitutes meaningful government spending.
It's probably a really bad time to bet on Harris right now.
Wait for the post debate glow to fade. There are still nearly 2 months to go.
A reminder that voting starts tomorrow (for overseas voters) and later this month for in-person voting in several states.
I agree with @SouthamObserver that Trump remains favourite based entirely on personal perception (as opposed to stats) of the economy and the (Trump fuelled) Dem. immigration crisis. It beats me how it could even be close. "Anyone but Trump" should be miles ahead.
What is more baffling are key Tories and educated PBers shilling for Trump, particularly strange for PB Trumpers to be batting for the Orange One when the entire readership of PB accounts for probably less than half a dozen votes in the election.
The support for Trump is actually support for a mythical leader of the anti-Democrats. Projected onto the actual Trump. The reality of the actual Trump is nearly irrelevant. See General Boulanger and Peron.
This myth explains how the attacks on Trump for his actual sins fail - the anti-Democrats bridge the gap between the reality and the myth with a Conspiracy Against The Leader.
The result is that 45% will vote Trump, no matter the reality.
In fact, Virginia, Minnesota and Vermont all begin in-person voting from Friday. I hadn't realised it was quite that early. Illinois is the following Thursday.
Pennsylvania in theory opens up tomorrow but in practice it will take a couple of weeks to sort the ballots out.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
That’s a bit of a selective quote. I think it’s quite clear in the context of my post that I meant in connection with the fiscal situation the government finds itself in. Of course it saves money. But it’s a drop in the ocean of government spend, for the political capital they have spent in going about removing it in the way they have.
Again you are being absurd, £7.5 billion is far more than a drop in the ocean.
0.125% of annual government expenditure is not a drop in the ocean, to compare to the Atlantic ocean 388k km^3 of water or 388,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml of water.
Seems like plenty of drops to me.
With respect, I've explained the context in which I made the post, which is that compared to other fiscal measures and difficult choices the government makes, this is a small one to be fighting your first significant political battle over, from a tactical perspective. I'm not going to get into an argument about what constitutes meaningful government spending.
But you're wrong.
Lots of "easy" cuts of billions of expenditure simply don't exist.
Yes total government expenditure is a lot, but most of it can't be cut for one reason or another, so every saving of a billion or more that can be made should be.
Heck if it only saved millions it should be done, but it saves billions. That's not to be belittled.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
If you are right then households with a single FT minimum wage (23K+) or two such wages (46K) are in gold plated bath tap +Rolls Royce land.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
If you are right then households with a single FT minimum wage (23K+) or two such wages (46K) are in gold plated bath tap +Rolls Royce land.
If they live rent and mortgage free and with no travel expenses? And no childcare costs too?
If they have those costs then someone on a FT minimum wage will have less disposable income, and often more mouths to feed, than someone with £13k tax and cost-free.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
Yes, a stupid way to fill the void over the summer and before the budget.
Stuff does seem to be happening on delivery though, largely under the radar as the right wing press isn't interested in the dull grind. While the hospital sector looks to be on a shoestring budget in anticipation of a tough winter, we do seem to be making progress on waiting lists etc with a renewed sense of purpose.
Maybe it is just my Trust, but things seem to be happening elsewhere too. My dad is 89 in Hants and commencing treatment this week just 3 weeks from NHS referral, having seen the Consultant last week. It's a characteristic of our society that we focus on the problems and take real progress for granted.
Sadly at the same time things are getting rapidly worse for GP provision. My local surgery - which I think is bloody marvelous and a model for others in the area - has just sent a letter out saying it can no longer do minor dressings. Until now it has done over 200 a week but now they will no longer be providing that service and anyone needing dressing changes, stitch removal or a number of other minor surgery services will have to attend a local minor injuries clinic at the hospital or go to A&E - the nearest of which is 30 miles away. This is because the surgery is not paid specifically for these services and because the rapid increase in local population mans they can no longer cope with the workload.
This is clearly not initially the responsibility of the new Government as it must have been coming for some time, but it is now their responsibility to sort it out. The next move will be to stop any new patients being added to the register which will leave patients without a GP entirely.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
I wouldn’t ban it.
But perhaps the stall is a fire hazard?
Or no external materials are allowed in for safety reasons? Have a selection of flags available inside if people want to them.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
There, there, there, there......... Aggghhhh
There, there.
Don’t worry about it. Autocorrect gets us all in the end
I have a friend of mine who lives in Hendon (a staunch Brexiteer) and drives past every year to see what's going on and gently encourage them to get a life. He said they were 100% white, earnest, all over 55 years old, and all very sad people.
Do you not get the irony. What you friend does must be the very definition of sad. He is as bad or worse than the sad people handing out the flags.
Not sure about that. What's worse: "Let's try to irritate people!" or "Let's complain at people who are deliberately irritating people!". The second seems a but sad but the first is the action of a Grade A wanker.
Though if people are trying to irritate you, showing how incredibly irritated you are is only going to encourage them
Indeed
So when Bart replies to your posts after you asked him not to why don’t you just ignore him instead of giving him a reaction ?
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
There, there, there, there......... Aggghhhh
There, there.
Don’t worry about it. Autocorrect gets us all in the end
All autocorrects are infuriating.
They're very annoying to their users, especially when you go back over a page and see so many homophones have been wrongly added there.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
Yes, a stupid way to fill the void over the summer and before the budget.
Stuff does seem to be happening on delivery though, largely under the radar as the right wing press isn't interested in the dull grind. While the hospital sector looks to be on a shoestring budget in anticipation of a tough winter, we do seem to be making progress on waiting lists etc with a renewed sense of purpose.
Maybe it is just my Trust, but things seem to be happening elsewhere too. My dad is 89 in Hants and commencing treatment this week just 3 weeks from NHS referral, having seen the Consultant last week. It's a characteristic of our society that we focus on the problems and take real progress for granted.
Sadly at the same time things are getting rapidly worse for GP provision. My local surgery - which I think is bloody marvelous and a model for others in the area - has just sent a letter out saying it can no longer do minor dressings. Until now it has done over 200 a week but now they will no longer be providing that service and anyone needing dressing changes, stitch removal or a number of other minor surgery services will have to attend a local minor injuries clinic at the hospital or go to A&E - the nearest of which is 30 miles away. This is because the surgery is not paid specifically for these services and because the rapid increase in local population mans they can no longer cope with the workload.
This is clearly not initially the responsibility of the new Government as it must have been coming for some time, but it is now their responsibility to sort it out. The next move will be to stop any new patients being added to the register which will leave patients without a GP entirely.
Yes that is daft. I had a very minor op this year for trigger finger. 5 min under a local anaesthetic. A week or so later I went to the nurse at the GP surgery to have the stitches taken out. It took less than a minute, primarily because they had mostly come out themselves. A trip to hospital would have been a waste of everyone's time.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
Yes, well done LuckyG. The solution for Casino ought to be obvious - offer free Union flags on the other side of the door.
Besides, the in-person audience for the Proms probably tends metropolitan and upmarket.
On average, such people were remainers and are now rejoiners. They might just be being sincere. After all, nobody can make them take Euroflags, even if someone is given them out by the entrance.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Won't even be a full £300 when you consider that the energy companies will be lapping some of this up via their pricing as invariably happens with state subsidies.
Well you could have knocked me down with a feather! Jewish Chronicle telling fibs about Israel.........Jonathan Friedland Mark Regev's bestie resigns....
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
There, there, there, there......... Aggghhhh
There, there.
Don’t worry about it. Autocorrect gets us all in the end
All autocorrects are infuriating.
They're very annoying to their users, especially when you go back over a page and see so many homophones have been wrongly added there.
My phone has reversed its policy. It used to clean messages up so you got Ducking hell, Donald Trump is a shot etc. These days I have to revert it from me talking about fucking my responsibilities.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
There, there, there, there......... Aggghhhh
There, there.
Don’t worry about it. Autocorrect gets us all in the end
All autocorrects are infuriating.
They're very annoying to their users, especially when you go back over a page and see so many homophones have been wrongly added there.
My phone has reversed its policy. It used to clean messages up so you got Ducking hell, Donald Trump is a shot etc. These days I have to revert it from me talking about fucking my responsibilities.
My new phone arrived yesterday, so I don't know yet.
My keyboard goes the other way, and turns a typo into a typoo.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
Yes, well done LuckyG. The solution for Casino ought to be obvious - offer free Union flags on the other side of the door.
Besides, the in-person audience for the Proms probably tends metropolitan and upmarket.
On average, such people were remainers and are now rejoiners. They might just be being sincere. After all, nobody can make them take Euroflags, even if someone is given them out by the entrance.
I didn't watch much of the Last Night ...... mainly watching cricket, very enjoyable ..... but I saw all sorts of flags but no Scots or Welsh ones.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I wouldn't say it was bizarre not walking away from the WFA. My guess is that it was very deliberate and they knew perfectly well the people it would offend. I also don't believe they're unhappy at the outcome. They'll make sure those missing the £200 will be compensated in some other way but by then their objectives will have been met.
Just tlistening to the hyperbole from the Tory diehards and their client media and you begin to understasnd how Starmer and Reeves surefootedness is unnerving them. I heard a report on how Reeves walked into the committee room for a meeting with the Labour PLP with a big smile on her face and a can of coke in her hand.....
The Guardian is the most vocal opponent of the policy. Labours own numbers show that hundreds of thousands will lose out because they won't apply for the right benefits. There was an 81 year old living in rented accommodation on £7,500 on radio 4 yesterday lunchtime.
I'm surprised you of all people would bring up the story of the 81 year old living in rented accomodation......
The BBC pay researchers buttons to find dozens of such people. The Guardian the same but they call them 'trainees'.
...........The fifth richest man in the country getting WFA living in Monaco while an 80 year old man living in Scunthorpe was eating Yaks testicles raw because he couldn't afford to switch on his cooker.....
.........If the Star won't take it they can always go to the Telegraph
Any Answers so she initially self selected by ringing in, though I am sure she was then screened. But she exists and is in a bad way
I heard it. There were several angry callers. I'm sure many were in genuine distress. I don't think that tells us at this stage very much. When it's time to receive the £200 fuel payment we might get some clearer understanding of what the effects are and what it was all about.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
There, there, there, there......... Aggghhhh
There, there.
Don’t worry about it. Autocorrect gets us all in the end
All autocorrects are infuriating.
They're very annoying to their users, especially when you go back over a page and see so many homophones have been wrongly added there.
My phone has reversed its policy. It used to clean messages up so you got Ducking hell, Donald Trump is a shot etc. These days I have to revert it from me talking about fucking my responsibilities.
My new phone arrived yesterday, so I don't know yet.
My keyboard goes the other way, and turns a typo into a typoo.
We shall see .
My phone has the unfortunate habit of changing a particular word so whenever I’m firing off a message about a “new bank” it sends as “Jew bank” which is really quite unfortunate.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
I'm amazed to hear that most pensioners aren't paying rent. Presumably the limited scope of my personal knowledge is distorting my view.
I think it’s possible that Springfield might lose Trump the election. Immigration has always been his strongest argument, but it’s always been vague promises - and during his presidency he did little to significantly change the numbers.
It’s now front and centre to his campaign - and he has a people around him, including his VP, fervently committed to the mad idea of mass deportations, in a way that was not previously the case.
I don’t see how he campaigns on this for another month without being caught up in its contradictions. “Concepts of a plan” will be ridiculed.
The furore over this is surprising IMO over a proposal to means-test a single £300 per annum payment.
I'd abolish the whole thing.
My understanding is that what is proposed is abolition. You can then alleviate the situation by claiming pension credit but that's not the same as means testing
Incorrect. It's being means rested using pension credit, universal credit, income-related employment and support allowance, income-based jobseeker's allowance, income support, child tax credit or working tax credit all as a piggy back eligibility.
By boosting uptake of Pension Credit to 100%, it ends up a fiscally neutral transfer to the poorest pensioners.
Regarding @Leon ’s more sensible contributions last night.
Impoverished is the right word, but not financially impoverished (as it would imply higher taxes = less impoverished). Small US towns often have $200m in car infrastructure.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
I'm amazed to hear that most pensioners aren't paying rent. Presumably the limited scope of my personal knowledge is distorting my view.
70% of pensioners own their own homes outright, compared with 16% for the rest of the adult population.
Only 7% privately rent, compared with 27% for under 65s.
The furore over this is surprising IMO over a proposal to means-test a single £300 per annum payment.
I'd abolish the whole thing.
My understanding is that what is proposed is abolition. You can then alleviate the situation by claiming pension credit but that's not the same as means testing
Incorrect. It's being means rested using pension credit, universal credit, income-related employment and support allowance, income-based jobseeker's allowance, income support, child tax credit or working tax credit all as a piggy back eligibility.
By boosting uptake of Pension Credit to 100%, it ends up a fiscally neutral transfer to the poorest pensioners.
Yes sorry you are right
But nothing boosts uptake of any benefit to anything like 100% (currently 63% of those eligible for pension credit are applying for it), so it's a transfer to a subset of the poorest pensioners.
I think it’s possible that Springfield might lose Trump the election. Immigration has always been his strongest argument, but it’s always been vague promises - and during his presidency he did little to significantly change the numbers.
It’s now front and centre to his campaign - and he has a people around him, including his VP, fervently committed to the mad idea of mass deportations, in a way that was not previously the case.
I don’t see how he campaigns on this for another month without being caught up in its contradictions. “Concepts of a plan” will be ridiculed.
Ah but, say the PB sages, it cleverly focuses the debate on Trump's strongest issue, immigration. It could well play out in the way that Rwanda helped Rishi Sunak win the last general election.
Surely Zelensky would be mad to share his victory plan with Biden? How long before the whole thing leaked to the Kremlin? It is difficult to know what to do now. There is clearly nothing that will shake the US out of its escalation management strategy, if such a word is applicable.
If they won't/can't support a winning Ukrainian policy then the next best thing would be for Ukraine to negotiate from the strongest possible position come an end to the fighting. Given that is unlikely at this point to mean a deal whereby Russia leaves all sovereign Ukrainian territory, a ceasefire along the current battlelines would probably be most likely. The key would be to try and avoid any appeasement with Putin by providing relief from sanctions. That will simply allow him to rebuild the Russian economy and military and won't solve the problem long term.
There was an opportunity in 2022 to put an end to Russian imperialism in Europe for good. It seemed for a while with the zeitenwende that perhaps we were thinking that way. Instead once the Russian army got bogged down in eastern Ukraine the west breathed a sigh of relief and decided to focus on other things. A major own goal. Russian will continue it seems on its current path, tattered but unbowed, in a close axis with the rising global superpower of China and Iran aswell.
The furore over this is surprising IMO over a proposal to means-test a single £300 per annum payment.
I'd abolish the whole thing.
My understanding is that what is proposed is abolition. You can then alleviate the situation by claiming pension credit but that's not the same as means testing
Incorrect. It's being means rested using pension credit, universal credit, income-related employment and support allowance, income-based jobseeker's allowance, income support, child tax credit or working tax credit all as a piggy back eligibility.
By boosting uptake of Pension Credit to 100%, it ends up a fiscally neutral transfer to the poorest pensioners.
Yes sorry you are right
But nothing boosts uptake of any benefit to anything like 100% (currently 63% of those eligible for pension credit are applying for it), so it's a transfer to a subset of the poorest pensioners.
The Scottish Government routinely gets higher take ups for equivalent devolved benefits simply because they invest more in the agency that administers them. This causes all sorts of bother with higher than expected spending on social security.
Much depends on DWP replicating that (after 14 years of institutional misery), so you're probably right!
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
Yes, well done LuckyG. The solution for Casino ought to be obvious - offer free Union flags on the other side of the door.
Besides, the in-person audience for the Proms probably tends metropolitan and upmarket.
On average, such people were remainers and are now rejoiners. They might just be being sincere. After all, nobody can make them take Euroflags, even if someone is given them out by the entrance.
Yes, this is what I said on the previous thread.
Those that attend in person are very unrepresentative of those who watch it in the country at large, and attitudes to "country" have changed a lot in that group over the last 30 years.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
A Rich Person Tax of some sort almost always tends to be another squeeze on higher earners over £100k though, which further disincentivises work and growth.
I think it’s possible that Springfield might lose Trump the election. Immigration has always been his strongest argument, but it’s always been vague promises - and during his presidency he did little to significantly change the numbers.
It’s now front and centre to his campaign - and he has a people around him, including his VP, fervently committed to the mad idea of mass deportations, in a way that was not previously the case.
I don’t see how he campaigns on this for another month without being caught up in its contradictions. “Concepts of a plan” will be ridiculed.
Ah but, say the PB sages, it cleverly focuses the debate on Trump's strongest issue, immigration. It could well play out in the way that Rwanda helped Rishi Sunak win the last general election.
Sunak did not go in to GE 2024 at evens to win, nor with enormous (or any) polling leads on the economy, inflation or immigration.
I think it’s possible that Springfield might lose Trump the election. Immigration has always been his strongest argument, but it’s always been vague promises - and during his presidency he did little to significantly change the numbers.
It’s now front and centre to his campaign - and he has a people around him, including his VP, fervently committed to the mad idea of mass deportations, in a way that was not previously the case.
I don’t see how he campaigns on this for another month without being caught up in its contradictions. “Concepts of a plan” will be ridiculed.
Dems also need to hammer him health care.
He will scrap ObamaCare and leave millions without cover.
Voters need to know this. The middle class as they call it will be voting to remove its own medical cover.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
There, there, there, there......... Aggghhhh
There, there.
Don’t worry about it. Autocorrect gets us all in the end
All autocorrects are infuriating.
They're very annoying to their users, especially when you go back over a page and see so many homophones have been wrongly added there.
My phone has reversed its policy. It used to clean messages up so you got Ducking hell, Donald Trump is a shot etc. These days I have to revert it from me talking about fucking my responsibilities.
My new phone arrived yesterday, so I don't know yet.
My keyboard goes the other way, and turns a typo into a typoo.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
Yes, a stupid way to fill the void over the summer and before the budget.
Stuff does seem to be happening on delivery though, largely under the radar as the right wing press isn't interested in the dull grind. While the hospital sector looks to be on a shoestring budget in anticipation of a tough winter, we do seem to be making progress on waiting lists etc with a renewed sense of purpose.
Maybe it is just my Trust, but things seem to be happening elsewhere too. My dad is 89 in Hants and commencing treatment this week just 3 weeks from NHS referral, having seen the Consultant last week. It's a characteristic of our society that we focus on the problems and take real progress for granted.
That's good to hear and very interesting. Do you have a feel for what's caused it? Is it a general improvement of morale all round, or just a mechanical result of not having strike days to cope with?
Good morning, everyone.
A large part is the strikes ending, allowing everyone to concentrate on the stuff that matters, rather than endless preparation for strike days, re-rostering and rescheduling.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
Yes, a stupid way to fill the void over the summer and before the budget.
Stuff does seem to be happening on delivery though, largely under the radar as the right wing press isn't interested in the dull grind. While the hospital sector looks to be on a shoestring budget in anticipation of a tough winter, we do seem to be making progress on waiting lists etc with a renewed sense of purpose.
Maybe it is just my Trust, but things seem to be happening elsewhere too. My dad is 89 in Hants and commencing treatment this week just 3 weeks from NHS referral, having seen the Consultant last week. It's a characteristic of our society that we focus on the problems and take real progress for granted.
Sadly at the same time things are getting rapidly worse for GP provision. My local surgery - which I think is bloody marvelous and a model for others in the area - has just sent a letter out saying it can no longer do minor dressings. Until now it has done over 200 a week but now they will no longer be providing that service and anyone needing dressing changes, stitch removal or a number of other minor surgery services will have to attend a local minor injuries clinic at the hospital or go to A&E - the nearest of which is 30 miles away. This is because the surgery is not paid specifically for these services and because the rapid increase in local population mans they can no longer cope with the workload.
This is clearly not initially the responsibility of the new Government as it must have been coming for some time, but it is now their responsibility to sort it out. The next move will be to stop any new patients being added to the register which will leave patients without a GP entirely.
Yes, this is why GPs are still in dispute with the government. It's a legacy of the current health service budget set by the last government. GPs have been landed with extra costs, but sub-inflationary funding rises to cover those extra costs. Therefore like any business they cut the extras, and continue with the work that they actually get paid for.
The Darzi report plans a significant shift of funding away from Trust's like mine to Primary care and public health, so future funding may well reverse this cut.
One expects Tory PMs to fail the "knows how ordinary people live" test but this is a toolmaker's son who had the phone cut off for non-payment. He is now so nomenklatura he can't imagine what it is like not to have coins to put in the meter, or friends picking up 5 figure dressmakers tabs. Meet the new boss.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
I think you are being a bit of a spoilsport here. It is a great event that hasn't really changed. I can understand people not liking the EU flags, but they don't spoil the event and there are still plenty of Union flags and I'm sure with time it will revert when the fuss finally dies down. And the fun and music are the important thing which are very patriotic and nobody has suggested changing that.
It is one of the events that makes Britain British, like pubs, bonfire night and pantomime.
PS re @Big_G_NorthWales he has mentioned his child in Canada a few times.
I disagree with you here (which doesn’t happen that often).
It’s not the waving of EU flags that irritates me - if it happened organically (as it did in the past as @Richard_Tyndall noted). It’s the fact that there is a campaign to make a political point out of something that is harmless fun and a bit of silliness and flag waving
(And there are regular attempts to change the music for what it is worth)
@StillWaters Thank you for your kind comment (even if you are disagreeing with me). Kind of you.
if they did try and change the usual songs I would be annoyed as that spoils the tradition and I am aware that their have been attempts.
Re the difference between organic and organised I agree with you, but to ban it would be Stalinist. I get frustrated when people from the right claim they want freedom of speech then want to ban stuff they don't like. Credit to @Luckyguy1983 on the last thread for not going along with that.
There, there, there, there......... Aggghhhh
There, there.
Don’t worry about it. Autocorrect gets us all in the end
All autocorrects are infuriating.
They're very annoying to their users, especially when you go back over a page and see so many homophones have been wrongly added there.
My phone has reversed its policy. It used to clean messages up so you got Ducking hell, Donald Trump is a shot etc. These days I have to revert it from me talking about fucking my responsibilities.
My new phone arrived yesterday, so I don't know yet.
My keyboard goes the other way, and turns a typo into a typoo.
The furore over this is surprising IMO over a proposal to means-test a single £300 per annum payment.
I'd abolish the whole thing.
My understanding is that what is proposed is abolition. You can then alleviate the situation by claiming pension credit but that's not the same as means testing
Incorrect. It's being means rested using pension credit, universal credit, income-related employment and support allowance, income-based jobseeker's allowance, income support, child tax credit or working tax credit all as a piggy back eligibility.
By boosting uptake of Pension Credit to 100%, it ends up a fiscally neutral transfer to the poorest pensioners.
Yes sorry you are right
But nothing boosts uptake of any benefit to anything like 100% (currently 63% of those eligible for pension credit are applying for it), so it's a transfer to a subset of the poorest pensioners.
The Scottish Government routinely gets higher take ups for equivalent devolved benefits simply because they invest more in the agency that administers them. This causes all sorts of bother with higher than expected spending on social security.
Much depends on DWP replicating that (after 14 years of institutional misery), so you're probably right!
Or, in some cases, saving so much on *not* administering them - by making them universal that it almost pays the difference in itself, as we were discussing the other month.
But yes, more efficient government can cause problems with Barnett differentials.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
I'm amazed to hear that most pensioners aren't paying rent. Presumably the limited scope of my personal knowledge is distorting my view.
The furore over this is surprising IMO over a proposal to means-test a single £300 per annum payment.
I'd abolish the whole thing.
My understanding is that what is proposed is abolition. You can then alleviate the situation by claiming pension credit but that's not the same as means testing
No, those on pension credit or a number of other benefits will still get it.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Do you mean extending national insurance to pensioners who work or extending national insurance to all pensioners income ?
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
Oh God, I can't stand this. It's going to make the crushing disappoint all the more terrible when the OrangeOne just sneaks the ECV.
Can't stop thinking this is just like HRC all over again.
That's good mental insurance that I won't try and talk you out of. But I truly think not. Harris and not that close imo. Trump is a gently rotting carcass.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
I'm amazed to hear that most pensioners aren't paying rent. Presumably the limited scope of my personal knowledge is distorting my view.
I think it’s possible that Springfield might lose Trump the election. Immigration has always been his strongest argument, but it’s always been vague promises - and during his presidency he did little to significantly change the numbers.
It’s now front and centre to his campaign - and he has a people around him, including his VP, fervently committed to the mad idea of mass deportations, in a way that was not previously the case.
I don’t see how he campaigns on this for another month without being caught up in its contradictions. “Concepts of a plan” will be ridiculed.
Dems also need to hammer him health care.
He will scrap ObamaCare and leave millions without cover.
Voters need to know this. The middle class as they call it will be voting to remove its own medical cover.
They’re already doing that.
It’s a nice irony that attacking Obamacare helped him win in 2016. The Affordable Care Act (ie Obamacare) is now strongly supported by around two thirds of the electorate.
The point about Springfield is that it gives an opportunity for the Democrats to attack his strongest issue - indeed it demands that, both practically and morally.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Hence my advocacy of merging NI into income tax.
Accidentally bringing more people into paying tax, isn’t a tax increase, is it? {innocent face}
Oh God, I can't stand this. It's going to make the crushing disappoint all the more terrible when the OrangeOne just sneaks the ECV.
Can't stop thinking this is just like HRC all over again.
That's good mental insurance that I won't try and talk you out of. But I truly think not. Harris and not that close imo. Trump is a gently rotting carcass.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Do you mean extending national insurance to pensioners who work or extending national insurance to all pensioners income ?
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
Rather than extending NI, just merge the taxes and call them something like “universal income levy”, then align all the thresholds (an opportunity to give a mini tax cut to some people on those crazy marginal rates. The advantages aren’t just about pensioners:
- simplifies the system and removes a load of bureaucracy - Removes some of the biggest distortions that make self employment and employment so different (which then means you might be able to forget things like IR35)
It would bring in so much that the government could probably afford to reduce rates or uprate thresholds for inflation at the same time.
Oh God, I can't stand this. It's going to make the crushing disappoint all the more terrible when the OrangeOne just sneaks the ECV.
Can't stop thinking this is just like HRC all over again.
That's good mental insurance that I won't try and talk you out of. But I truly think not. Harris and not that close imo. Trump is a gently rotting carcass.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
If you are right then households with a single FT minimum wage (23K+) or two such wages (46K) are in gold plated bath tap +Rolls Royce land.
If they live rent and mortgage free and with no travel expenses? And no childcare costs too?
If they have those costs then someone on a FT minimum wage will have less disposable income, and often more mouths to feed, than someone with £13k tax and cost-free.
According to this 1-in-6 pensioner households are privately rented accommodation. More will be in social housing.
Additionally you have presented it unfairly - the working poor will have the same amount tax free.
As a rule of thumb, an acceptable standard of living on a single pension should be about 2/3 of the equivalent for a single wage earner to take account of lower costs. £13k is not that.
But all too often your tone comes across as “this policy doesn’t benefit me - it is outrageous and should scrapped”. There are poor pensioners who need help. There are poor working people who need support. Not all policies will be identical.
Oh God, I can't stand this. It's going to make the crushing disappoint all the more terrible when the OrangeOne just sneaks the ECV.
Can't stop thinking this is just like HRC all over again.
Trump has a three point hat. If Harris gets a lead of four or more, she wins. If it's two or less, she loses. Three is a toss-up (and I'd favour Trump)
Just in the pub and... my wife's friend can't pay for her Sunday lunch because her phone has died. We will stake her and she's going to transfer to our banks later but...
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Do you mean extending national insurance to pensioners who work or extending national insurance to all pensioners income ?
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
All income
I'm a future pensioner and while paying tax doesn't thrill me, I struggle to see that taxation should vary with age.
Oh God, I can't stand this. It's going to make the crushing disappoint all the more terrible when the OrangeOne just sneaks the ECV.
Can't stop thinking this is just like HRC all over again.
Trump has a three point hat. If Harris gets a lead of four or more, she wins. If it's two or less, she loses. Three is a toss-up (and I'd favour Trump)
Not sure that's the case this time. Still, I'll be getting nervous if the average Harris poll lead isn't at least 5 by mid Oct.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
Yes, a stupid way to fill the void over the summer and before the budget.
Stuff does seem to be happening on delivery though, largely under the radar as the right wing press isn't interested in the dull grind. While the hospital sector looks to be on a shoestring budget in anticipation of a tough winter, we do seem to be making progress on waiting lists etc with a renewed sense of purpose.
Maybe it is just my Trust, but things seem to be happening elsewhere too. My dad is 89 in Hants and commencing treatment this week just 3 weeks from NHS referral, having seen the Consultant last week. It's a characteristic of our society that we focus on the problems and take real progress for granted.
That's good to hear and very interesting. Do you have a feel for what's caused it? Is it a general improvement of morale all round, or just a mechanical result of not having strike days to cope with?
Good morning, everyone.
A large part is the strikes ending, allowing everyone to concentrate on the stuff that matters, rather than endless preparation for strike days, re-rostering and rescheduling.
Senior consultant in the NHS wants to put it out there that paying them lots more money is the magic solution to NHS productivity- shock.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Do you mean extending national insurance to pensioners who work or extending national insurance to all pensioners income ?
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
All income
I'm a future pensioner and while paying tax doesn't thrill me, I struggle to see that taxation should vary with age.
It would have various negative effects on those not yet pensioners.
One of which being it would make saving for a pension pointless beyond the minimum level as if you have to pay the same level of tax then why not spend the money immediately.
I think it’s possible that Springfield might lose Trump the election. Immigration has always been his strongest argument, but it’s always been vague promises - and during his presidency he did little to significantly change the numbers.
It’s now front and centre to his campaign - and he has a people around him, including his VP, fervently committed to the mad idea of mass deportations, in a way that was not previously the case.
I don’t see how he campaigns on this for another month without being caught up in its contradictions. “Concepts of a plan” will be ridiculed.
Dems also need to hammer him health care.
He will scrap ObamaCare and leave millions without cover.
Voters need to know this. The middle class as they call it will be voting to remove its own medical cover.
They’re already doing that.
It’s a nice irony that attacking Obamacare helped him win in 2016. The Affordable Care Act (ie Obamacare) is now strongly supported by around two thirds of the electorate.
The point about Springfield is that it gives an opportunity for the Democrats to attack his strongest issue - indeed it demands that, both practically and morally.
Springfield is a guaranteed loser for the Democrats. The claims are not falsifiable - I mean, the mayor and the Haitians would say that, wouldn't they - and even if they are falsified so what? Trump is exposed as a racist nutter for the 2376th time and life goes on. Conversely if they are true Trump is vindicated and the Dems look like they are part of the cover up. So I hope they have the good sense to leave this alone.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Do you mean extending national insurance to pensioners who work or extending national insurance to all pensioners income ?
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
All income
I'm a future pensioner and while paying tax doesn't thrill me, I struggle to see that taxation should vary with age.
It would have various negative effects on those not yet pensioners.
One of which being it would make saving for a pension pointless beyond the minimum level as if you have to pay the same level of tax then why not spend the money immediately.
Even though paying tax on retirement income makes it harder, I still do not want to be destitute in my old age, and so I will still save for it, if I can.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Do you mean extending national insurance to pensioners who work or extending national insurance to all pensioners income ?
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
All income
I'm a future pensioner and while paying tax doesn't thrill me, I struggle to see that taxation should vary with age.
It would have various negative effects on those not yet pensioners.
One of which being it would make saving for a pension pointless beyond the minimum level as if you have to pay the same level of tax then why not spend the money immediately.
No, because it affects neither the employer contribution nor the tax rebate on the way in, nor the differential for the moderately well paid between rate of tax when earning vs drawing pension.
For complicated reasons, my day involves driving Manchester-Derby-Macclesfield-Leek-Derby-Manchester. I have just reached stop No. 5 and finally got the chance for a sit down and a catch up with the day. And on doing so, my reflections are this: whoever designed that Arsenal kit should necer be let near any visually creative role ever again.
Just in the pub and... my wife's friend can't pay for her Sunday lunch because her phone has died. We will stake her and she's going to transfer to our banks later but...
For complicated reasons, my day involves driving Manchester-Derby-Macclesfield-Leek-Derby-Manchester. I have just reached stop No. 5 and finally got the chance for a sit down and a catch up with the day. And on doing so, my reflections are this: whoever designed that Arsenal kit should necer be let near any visually creative role ever again.
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Do you mean extending national insurance to pensioners who work or extending national insurance to all pensioners income ?
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
All income
I'm a future pensioner and while paying tax doesn't thrill me, I struggle to see that taxation should vary with age.
It would have various negative effects on those not yet pensioners.
One of which being it would make saving for a pension pointless beyond the minimum level as if you have to pay the same level of tax then why not spend the money immediately.
No, because it affects neither the employer contribution nor the tax rebate on the way in, nor the differential for the moderately well paid between rate of tax when earning vs drawing pension.
It would affect salary sacrifice pensions in value.
And it would certainly discourage people putting extra into their pensions generally - better to spend it while you were young and healthy rather than risk getting it when you were too old to have fun or have it go on care homes / inheritance tax
So three months in and nobody's talking about how competent Starmer's government is.
Unbelievably Sunak is starting to look good
Now hang on, that's going a bit far.
Is it ?
I mean for months on PB Starmer was praised for his quiet competence, w were going to have better government etc.
So far we have had a mega lie on £22 billion, the unions are rubbing their hands om inflationary pay increases, Miliband is merrily screwing up energy and killiing 100000+ jobs in the North Sea, , WFA fiasco, riots, growth at a stand still for the last 2 months and big tax rises on the horizon.
And all of that in 10 week as just today the sleaze accusations start to circle round Starmer.
It is permissible to think Starmer is no good after several weeks of mistakes.
It is hardly permissible to say Sunak after two years of extraordinary bungling where he got practically every major decision wrong looks good by comparison.
FWIW I believe the WFA issue is a massive misstep, and one Starmer and Reeves appear to be disinclined to walk back from, which is bizarre.
Most of the other criticisms on here and in the Tory client media, that the haven't stopped the boats because they jettisoned the "fantastic" Rwanda plan, although flights of failed asylum seekers have left the country to no fanfare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o.amp The accusation that Reeves has squandered the "golden legacy" and they have lost control over the NHS and prison management which was in Trumpian terms "great" under the Tories is all nonsense. The remaining Jenrick-smoothing Tories on here seem to believe if they can talk up a Starmer failure their boy is a shoo in in 2029. Of course Labour probably will be useless, and after ten weeks we have little evidence bto suggest otherwise, but will the Conservatives romp home unopposed in five years time? Our faithful friends on here, on the BBC and in the Telegraph don't seem to have twigged just how despised the Johnson and post- Johnson Tories are.
As to Mrs Starmer's clothing gift, whilst unwise, it's not (yet) on the scale of Lulu Lytle's wallpaper, the PPE fast lane scandal and of course Robert Jenrick's outrageous planning intervention on behalf of the pornographer and Tory donor Richard Desmond.
I am not surprised they are holding firm on WFA. If a new government backtracks on one of its very first tax and spend announcements, then it sets a precedent that they’ll roll over every time.
The issue for Starmer and Reeves is that this particular policy is the hill they’ve chosen (or had chosen for them) to take a stand on. It’s not a policy that wins them votes elsewhere, it doesn’t save tremendous sums of money, it annoys one of the most politically-engaged segments of society, it was announced before winter at a time the energy cap is going up and at the same time as public sector pay deals, it seems to have been announced as a throwaway policy, outside of a budget, because Reeves wanted something to sound “tough” on.
Their first big policy battle should have been the tax rises and spending cuts in the budget, with public sector reform the absolute next item on that list. As it is, they’ve allowed their hasty WFA announcement to set the scene and to spend all their political capital on, for no discernible political benefit.
"doesn't save tremendous amounts of money"
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
Yes. It's a tremendous amount. And £300 is a tremendous amount of money to lose if you are a single pensioner living on £13K. It's not complicated. Labour should have waited until it could target effectively, and filled the gap with a Rich Person Tax of some sort.
Why?
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
Also in the context of an 8.5% increase in April 2024, or £900 per year
I can't get over the simplicity and elegance of extending NI to pensioners as a way of squeezing the rich ones and leaving the poor alone. I don't think it was ruled out by the pledge not to increase NI because it's a broadening of scope not an increase.
Do you mean extending national insurance to pensioners who work or extending national insurance to all pensioners income ?
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
All income
I'm a future pensioner and while paying tax doesn't thrill me, I struggle to see that taxation should vary with age.
It would have various negative effects on those not yet pensioners.
One of which being it would make saving for a pension pointless beyond the minimum level as if you have to pay the same level of tax then why not spend the money immediately.
Even though paying tax on retirement income makes it harder, I still do not want to be destitute in my old age, and so I will still save for it, if I can.
How I save might change.
How you might save might save and how much you would save might change.
Increasing tax on the income of oldies would inevitably be a disincentive for people to to save to increase their income when they become oldies.
The better way to equalise tax rates between ages would be to continue to reduce national insurance while freezing income tax allowances.
"Victim's anger over attacker's early jail release
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
These, again, are most likely to be younger people who tend not to vote (especially if they've left registering that late) and they will hardly be likely to be voting for Trump.
I am not sure that he would benefit from the slumbering demographics.
Equally, Hilary Clinton was thought to be on course for victory due to her performance with Hispanics, another group with historically low turnout numbers, and that was wrong.
Chatter that free bus passes may also go as well as single person council tax discount.
If this is going to happen may as well do it now and hope it’s all a distant memory in 2029.
Even if these things don't all happen the speculation isn't helpful for Starmer.
It means no-one will end up trusting him, even if they aren't targeted this time.
"First they came for the pensioners..."
Its your fault
Free bus doesn't really cost the state anything. The buses would run anyway. In almost no cases is the freely-bussed pensioner depriving a fare-paying 16-65 year old of a seat. And some pensioners would pay a bus fare if they had to. But my bet is the majority would drive, taxi or not travel.
Comments
I think they messed up.
It's fair to say that Sunak and friends made progress on reducing the outliers on the waiting lists (> 2 year etc) since Covid, and I have praised them for that a number of times, but under their Government only marginal progress was made on the mass of the lists.
Here is the BMA analysis covering up to approximately mid-2024, with totals banded by waiting time.
The BMA has an illuminating set of graphs here, that drill down on the above:
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/nhs-backlog-data-analysis
I suggest the for Mr Starmer to be getting a decent political narrative from this, that total needs to be coming down by 500k+ per annum, with quarterly falls of 100k+.
Three of the known unknowns are a) the number of people who held off asking for treatment during Covid, who will now appear out of the woodwork, and b) the reductions in potential demand from people who died during Covid, and have left the building (so to speak, with apologies to Elvis), and c) The extra demand generated by effects and after-effects of Covid, such as long-Covid.
I'm offski now - have a good day, all.
This is everything that's wrong with this country. It saves £1.5 billion per annum, so about £7.5 billion over this Parliament.
And you don't think that's a tremendous amount of money?
The solution for Casino ought to be obvious - offer free Union flags on the other side of the door.
Politics is hard, but this is a truly unforced error. Labour can't afford to give the impression it is down on the proud poor.
0.125% of annual government expenditure is not a drop in the ocean, to compare to the Atlantic ocean 388k km^3 of water or 388,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml of water.
Seems like plenty of drops to me.
Reporter: Do you denounce the bomb threats in Springfield?
Trump: I don't know what happened with the bomb threats. I know that it's been taken over by illegal migrants, and that's a terrible thing that happened.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1835084514563178878
And, of course, legal migrants. Whom he's said he will use Presidential powers to deport en masse.
If this were just the ravings of an old man, it might be laughable. But his team who would form his administration, and his VP, are entirely on board with the ravings.
What is more baffling are key Tories and educated PBers shilling for Trump, particularly strange for PB Trumpers to be batting for the Orange One when the entire readership of PB accounts for probably less than half a dozen votes in the election.
I've just completed my fourth-ever sprint triathlon, in the 15.8-degree Grafham Water. I also got a PB (*) 5K run in at the end.
I'm feeling very, very happy. It was a great event, with lots of friendly people and gorgeous weather.
(*) Personal Best, not Political Betting
Most pensioners aren't paying any rent or mortgage and have no expenses to travel to work either.
£13k is not a terrible income then compared to those who are paying to go to work and paying rent or mortgage too.
So why should we be giving £300 of unearned income to them just because they're pensioners?
This myth explains how the attacks on Trump for his actual sins fail - the anti-Democrats bridge the gap between the reality and the myth with a Conspiracy Against The Leader.
The result is that 45% will vote Trump, no matter the reality.
Pennsylvania in theory opens up tomorrow but in practice it will take a couple of weeks to sort the ballots out.
Lots of "easy" cuts of billions of expenditure simply don't exist.
Yes total government expenditure is a lot, but most of it can't be cut for one reason or another, so every saving of a billion or more that can be made should be.
Heck if it only saved millions it should be done, but it saves billions. That's not to be belittled.
If they have those costs then someone on a FT minimum wage will have less disposable income, and often more mouths to feed, than someone with £13k tax and cost-free.
This is clearly not initially the responsibility of the new Government as it must have been coming for some time, but it is now their responsibility to sort it out. The next move will be to stop any new patients being added to the register which will leave patients without a GP entirely.
But perhaps the stall is a fire hazard?
Or no external materials are allowed in for safety reasons? Have a selection of flags available inside if people want to them.
Don’t worry about it. Autocorrect gets us all in the end
So when Bart replies to your posts after you asked him not to why don’t you just ignore him instead of giving him a reaction ?
They're very annoying to their users, especially when you go back over a page and see so many homophones have been wrongly added there.
On average, such people were remainers and are now rejoiners. They might just be being sincere. After all, nobody can make them take Euroflags, even if someone is given them out by the entrance.
https://x.com/rosieduffield1/status/1835248927148327352?s=61
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/14/crisis-at-jewish-chronicle-as-stories-are-withdrawn
My keyboard goes the other way, and turns a typo into a typoo.
We shall see
Immigration has always been his strongest argument, but it’s always been vague promises - and during his presidency he did little to significantly change the numbers.
It’s now front and centre to his campaign - and he has a people around him, including his VP, fervently committed to the mad idea of mass deportations, in a way that was not previously the case.
I don’t see how he campaigns on this for another month without being caught up in its contradictions. “Concepts of a plan” will be ridiculed.
By boosting uptake of Pension Credit to 100%, it ends up a fiscally neutral transfer to the poorest pensioners.
If this is going to happen may as well do it now and hope it’s all a distant memory in 2029.
Impoverished is the right word, but not financially impoverished (as it would imply higher taxes = less impoverished). Small US towns often have $200m in car infrastructure.
The American public realm is often impoverished of humanness, despite expensive to maintain.
https://x.com/AndrewAPrice/status/1835027645341614468
Only 7% privately rent, compared with 27% for under 65s.
But nothing boosts uptake of any benefit to anything like 100% (currently 63% of those eligible for pension credit are applying for it), so it's a transfer to a subset of the poorest pensioners.
If they won't/can't support a winning Ukrainian policy then the next best thing would be for Ukraine to negotiate from the strongest possible position come an end to the fighting. Given that is unlikely at this point to mean a deal whereby Russia leaves all sovereign Ukrainian territory, a ceasefire along the current battlelines would probably be most likely. The key would be to try and avoid any appeasement with Putin by providing relief from sanctions. That will simply allow him to rebuild the Russian economy and military and won't solve the problem long term.
There was an opportunity in 2022 to put an end to Russian imperialism in Europe for good. It seemed for a while with the zeitenwende that perhaps we were thinking that way. Instead once the Russian army got bogged down in eastern Ukraine the west breathed a sigh of relief and decided to focus on other things. A major own goal. Russian will continue it seems on its current path, tattered but unbowed, in a close axis with the rising global superpower of China and Iran aswell.
Much depends on DWP replicating that (after 14 years of institutional misery), so you're probably right!
Those that attend in person are very unrepresentative of those who watch it in the country at large, and attitudes to "country" have changed a lot in that group over the last 30 years.
It means no-one will end up trusting him, even if they aren't targeted this time.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/06/economy/2020-poll-trump-biden-economy/index.html
October 2020 Trump and Biden level pegging on economy.
https://www.newsweek.com/despite-struggles-trump-still-leading-harris-economy-immigration-1949441
September 2024 Trump massive lead.
It's the economy, stupid. It really is.
He will scrap ObamaCare and leave millions without cover.
Voters need to know this. The middle class as they call it will be voting to remove its own medical cover.
The personality of May, the integrity of Johnson and the empathy of Truss.
What a time to be alive!
https://x.com/MightyMightyO1/status/1835256707636715948
@ABC
General election poll
🔵 Harris 52% (+6)
🔴 Trump 46%
Ipsos #B - 2196 LV - 9/13
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1835289319197536436
The Darzi report plans a significant shift of funding away from Trust's like mine to Primary care and public health, so future funding may well reverse this cut.
Can't stop thinking this is just like HRC all over again.
One expects Tory PMs to fail the "knows how ordinary people live" test but this is a toolmaker's son who had the phone cut off for non-payment. He is now so nomenklatura he can't imagine what it is like not to have coins to put in the meter, or friends picking up 5 figure dressmakers tabs. Meet the new boss.
But yes, more efficient government can cause problems with Barnett differentials.
https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/eligibility
So the benefit is now means tested, with the means test set at the level of eligibility for pension credit.
Cold weather payments will continue as before.
https://www.gov.uk/cold-weather-payment
If its the latter then the people who will really be annoyed are the future pensioners not the current lot.
It’s a nice irony that attacking Obamacare helped him win in 2016.
The Affordable Care Act (ie Obamacare) is now strongly supported by around two thirds of the electorate.
The point about Springfield is that it gives an opportunity for the Democrats to attack his strongest issue - indeed it demands that, both practically and morally.
Accidentally bringing more people into paying tax, isn’t a tax increase, is it? {innocent face}
- simplifies the system and removes a load of bureaucracy
- Removes some of the biggest distortions that make self employment and employment so different (which then means you might be able to forget things like IR35)
It would bring in so much that the government could probably afford to reduce rates or uprate thresholds for inflation at the same time.
https://knightsbridge-estates.co.uk/1-in-6-retirees-renting-in-retirement/#:~:text=In fact, just under 1,live in private rented accommodation.
Additionally you have presented it unfairly - the working poor will have the same amount tax free.
As a rule of thumb, an acceptable standard of living on a single pension should be about 2/3 of the equivalent for a single wage earner to take account of lower costs. £13k is not that.
But all too often your tone comes across as “this policy doesn’t benefit me - it is outrageous and should scrapped”. There are poor pensioners who need help. There are poor working people who need support. Not all policies will be identical.
CASH
I'm a future pensioner and while paying tax doesn't thrill me, I struggle to see that taxation should vary with age.
One of which being it would make saving for a pension pointless beyond the minimum level as if you have to pay the same level of tax then why not spend the money immediately.
How I save might change.
And it would certainly discourage people putting extra into their pensions generally - better to spend it while you were young and healthy rather than risk getting it when you were too old to have fun or have it go on care homes / inheritance tax
Increasing tax on the income of oldies would inevitably be a disincentive for people to to save to increase their income when they become oldies.
The better way to equalise tax rates between ages would be to continue to reduce national insurance while freezing income tax allowances.
An assault victim has said she felt "sick" after being told her attacker could be released from jail earlier than she expected. Martin Underwood, 49, attacked Elizabeth Hudson at their home in Barnsley in April 2021, before assaulting a second victim while out on police bail. In February last year, Underwood was jailed for six years and three months, but under the Ministry of Justice's new emergency plan to ease prison overcrowding, he could now be let out in June."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvyg8g8vy4o
Over half of all people clicking on vote.gov (405000 out of 726000) 10-11th Sept accessed the website via a link from Taylor Swift.
It's not quite clear how many completed the registration but that's a statistically significant bump.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/09/12/votegov-had-nearly-406000-visitors-after-taylor-swifts-endorsement/
These, again, are most likely to be younger people who tend not to vote (especially if they've left registering that late) and they will hardly be likely to be voting for Trump.
I am not sure that he would benefit from the slumbering demographics.
Equally, Hilary Clinton was thought to be on course for victory due to her performance with Hispanics, another group with historically low turnout numbers, and that was wrong.
And some pensioners would pay a bus fare if they had to. But my bet is the majority would drive, taxi or not travel.