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.
My earnings are such that I pay higher rate on my income now, but I'm never going to be paying higher rate on my pension income, so even without a differential on NI (or the Irish equivalent, not sure how it's done here), I'm still going to have an extra tax incentive to save for a pension.
If you're earning enough to be thinking about paying higher rate on your pension income, then it doesn't really matter, and if someone is a basic rate taxpayer anyway, their going to struggle to have the spare income to save more than the minimum anyway, given housing costs.
I just think you've identified a non-issue in the scheme of things.
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
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.
Different, aint it?
This is the one that looks as if they are all bleeding from a cut carotid artery?
(Looking at carotid, I wonder if there was ever a pun about it in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.)
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.
At least it would put a stop to stories about pensioners riding buses to keep warm. Although none of the buses I've travelled on in winter are noted for their warmth, I must admit.
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.
The most interesting extensive user of a Pensioner Pass that I ever heard of was Vasili Mitrokhin, of The Mitrokhin Archive I and II .
Efforts by the media to track Mitrokhin down after the publication of our first volume were, happily, unsuccessful; he was too private a person, and had arrived in Britain too late in life - and with too little experience of the west - to have coped with the glare of publicity. He had, however, perfected the art of being inconspicuous, and travelled unnoticed the length and breadth of the United Kingdom on his senior citizen's railcard. After the tragic death of his wife Nina, a Russian doctor, from motorneurone disease in 1999, he flew around the world on his British passport. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/feb/04/guardianobituaries.russia
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
He said that bit out loud? Blimey.
On one hand, there is a double standard. Practical politics dictates that one side can say any old tosh, as long as there is some tiny kernel of truth whereas the other has to have everything lined up perfectly. But you don't admit that. Not out loud.
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...
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
Note how the murder of George Floyd was when Trump's ratings started to really tank in 2020.
Talking about (illegal) immigration/the border=good for Trump.
Stoking racial violence/talking about deporting those who are already legally in the US=bad for Trump.
Maybe Harris is piling up votes where she doesn't need them - nearly missing out on formerly solid red states?
Seltzer is midwest state polling Gold Standard. Of course any poll can be misleading, but that poll is huge.
Is there carryover to neighbouring states, or are you right in suggesting it’s just votes where they won’t do her any good ? We’ll see; but for now, it’s the opposite of bad news for her.
It’s the failure to project a positive vision of the future that makes the WFA cut seem arbitrary and mean, even though the essential case that pensioners have been cosseted for too long is unanswerable.
So far Labour have come for private school parents, non-doms, pub garden smokers, and junk food fans. I get that none of those are especially popular interest groups, but it does create a picture of something akin to spitefulness, especially since none of these tax or policy changes have a damn thing to do with the core issues facing the country.
Meanwhile, courts focus on penalising private business with bizarre wage awards and killing off the prospect of jobs from the proposed mine in Cumbria.
The budget will be key, but so far it’s looking rather shite for Keir Starmer’s Labour (and Keir Starmer’s Britain).
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.
Had lunch in Norfolk and overheard the local sovereigntists having a lunch. A group so anti government they think even Trump is an establishment tool and don’t get them started on Starmer, Zelensky and Blair
Maybe Harris is piling up votes where she doesn't need them - nearly missing out on formerly solid red states?
Someone previously pointed out Trump was polling higher in NY and CA than in previous elections - so perhaps both candidates are polling better where they have almost zero chance of winning?
That would suggest a high level of determination to vote on both sides, to vote even where your state appears to be a lost cause.
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
What? You said Springfield was going to lose Trump the election, I said it didn't make any odds. Which position is "obsessing about cats"?
I am interested in the outcome of the presidential election, you think it is going to be determined by your personal opinion of Trump. It isn't.
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?
It’s very weird accepting clothes as a gift, we aren’t just talking about a nice cashmere jumper or a Hermes scarf but full wardrobe (and a pretty vanilla one at that).
Did the donor think Starmer is too poor to outfit him and his wife, or that they dressed badly so needed his help? Obviously not so just a really strange gift to accept.
Can you imagine how many clothing companies were falling over each other to get Victoria Starmer to wear their products? She wears Me+eM which is a relatively cheap brand and their business has exploded since it's been publicisd that it's her favourite brand.
Exciting news for fans of CASH. I am planning to find an ATM later and pull some of your primitive promissory notes out of the wall.
Every time some neophile derides CASH, it motivates me to make another transaction in cash in order to keep the medium alive.
I’m very happy for can fan to keep using cash. I just don’t have a political opinion about it vs cashless. Personally I rarely use cash but that is for reasons of convenience not because I’m trying to abolish it.
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
He said that bit out loud? Blimey.
On one hand, there is a double standard. Practical politics dictates that one side can say any old tosh, as long as there is some tiny kernel of truth whereas the other has to have everything lined up perfectly. But you don't admit that. Not out loud.
I recall that "take him seriously not literally" line from Trump supporters when he first emerged. Aka a license to lie. Nice work if you can get it. Deeply corrupting though.
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
What? You said Springfield was going to lose Trump the election, I said it didn't make any odds. Which position is "obsessing about cats"?
I am interested in the outcome of the presidential election, you think it is going to be determined by your personal opinion of Trump. It isn't.
I also said the Springfield story isn't really about cats; it's about mass deportation - as Trump's comments have made very clear.
"I will start the mass deportations in Springfield."
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.
Eh? Increasing tax on income of the elderly surely *increases* my incentive to save, because now I need to save more to sustain the same retirement living standard.
I heard Ed Davey on Newsround earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
The LDs are now basically the party of voters who hate Brexit but are too posh to vote Labour. Locally they add on a few pensioners at council elections who hate new homes in nearby fields and want the potholes done but still vote Tory nationally.
Yes for their national voters Waitrose and Charlie Bingham meals are a must along with holidays in Tuscany.
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.
Had lunch in Norfolk and overheard the local sovereigntists having a lunch. A group so anti government they think even Trump is an establishment tool and don’t get them started on Starmer, Zelensky and Blair
They sound like fruitcakes. Hope you kept your distance.
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
What? You said Springfield was going to lose Trump the election, I said it didn't make any odds. Which position is "obsessing about cats"?
I am interested in the outcome of the presidential election, you think it is going to be determined by your personal opinion of Trump. It isn't.
I also said the Springfield story isn't really about cats; it's about mass deportation - as Trump's comments have made very clear.
"I will start the mass deportations in Springfield."
Exciting news for fans of CASH. I am planning to find an ATM later and pull some of your primitive promissory notes out of the wall.
Every time some neophile derides CASH, it motivates me to make another transaction in cash in order to keep the medium alive.
I’m very happy for can fan to keep using cash. I just don’t have a political opinion about it vs cashless. Personally I rarely use cash but that is for reasons of convenience not because I’m trying to abolish it.
On a separe subject, as someone vaguely local - I'm on holiday in Speyside in October with the wife and kids, and intend to do a castle one day - would you be able to offer a recommendation?
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
What? You said Springfield was going to lose Trump the election, I said it didn't make any odds. Which position is "obsessing about cats"?
I am interested in the outcome of the presidential election, you think it is going to be determined by your personal opinion of Trump. It isn't.
I also said the Springfield story isn't really about cats; it's about mass deportation - as Trump's comments have made very clear.
"I will start the mass deportations in Springfield."
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 16h John Boehner used to represent that part of Ohio. He's a decent man. Perhaps he could say something? Perhaps he could further withdraw his support from Trump and Vance?
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
What? You said Springfield was going to lose Trump the election, I said it didn't make any odds. Which position is "obsessing about cats"?
I am interested in the outcome of the presidential election, you think it is going to be determined by your personal opinion of Trump. It isn't.
I also said the Springfield story isn't really about cats; it's about mass deportation - as Trump's comments have made very clear.
"I will start the mass deportations in Springfield."
Wouldn't be the first time
I'm surprised Trump hasn't tried to hire Lionel Hutz as his attorney.
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.
Had lunch in Norfolk and overheard the local sovereigntists having a lunch. A group so anti government they think even Trump is an establishment tool and don’t get them started on Starmer, Zelensky and Blair
They sound like fruitcakes. Hope you kept your distance.
Indeed we left pretty promptly after desert before they went to a room for their meeting, they have a big presence in the US. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were connected to them, they were fiercely anti lockdown, anti Vax, are anti government and anti courts and on the FBI watch list
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As someone who knows of Waitrose but doesn't use them, I'm unfamiliar with what a "Waitrose Users Group" thinks. I'm sure he's well aware of issues relating to health and social care not only from his personal experience and it may be those which resonate most with the LD voter bloc and those who might be persuaded to vote Liberal Democrat.
I accept that's just one area but I really don't know what has irritated you. What is it you want him to say or point out?
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.
Had lunch in Norfolk and overheard the local sovereigntists having a lunch. A group so anti government they think even Trump is an establishment tool and don’t get them started on Starmer, Zelensky and Blair
They sound like fruitcakes. Hope you kept your distance.
Indeed we left pretty promptly after desert before they went to a room for their meeting, they have a big presence in the US. Timothy McVeigh was connected to them, they were fiercely anti lockdown, anti Vax, are anti government and anti courts and on the FBI and MI5 watch list
Jenrick’s ground game is obviously making itself felt.
Exciting news for fans of CASH. I am planning to find an ATM later and pull some of your primitive promissory notes out of the wall.
Every time some neophile derides CASH, it motivates me to make another transaction in cash in order to keep the medium alive.
I’m very happy for can fan to keep using cash. I just don’t have a political opinion about it vs cashless. Personally I rarely use cash but that is for reasons of convenience not because I’m trying to abolish it.
On a separe subject, as someone vaguely local - I'm on holiday in Speyside in October with the wife and kids, and intend to do a castle one day - would you be able to offer a recommendation?
Plenty of castles! Have a look on the National Trust website for what there in where you will be. Speyside is big enough to have many castles to choose from.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As someone who knows of Waitrose but doesn't use them, I'm unfamiliar with what a "Waitrose Users Group" thinks. I'm sure he's well aware of issues relating to health and social care not only from his personal experience and it may be those which resonate most with the LD voter bloc and those who might be persuaded to vote Liberal Democrat.
I accept that's just one area but I really don't know what has irritated you. What is it you want him to say or point out?
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As someone who knows of Waitrose but doesn't use them, I'm unfamiliar with what a "Waitrose Users Group" thinks. I'm sure he's well aware of issues relating to health and social care not only from his personal experience and it may be those which resonate most with the LD voter bloc and those who might be persuaded to vote Liberal Democrat.
I accept that's just one area but I really don't know what has irritated you. What is it you want him to say or point out?
Some liberal perspectives would be welcome.
Again, fine, but I don't know to what specifically you are referring. I hear Mark Dolan claiming free speech is being suppressed such that we won't be allowed to talk about migration or Net Zero. I wasn't aware anything so draconian was being suggested - while I'm no supporter for example, I wouldn't want GBN banned.
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
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...
CASH
What about cards? You'd be mad to rely on a universal phone signal for an ap.
I heard Ed Davey on Newsround earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
The LDs are now basically the party of voters who hate Brexit but are too posh to vote Labour.
Yes Waitrose and Charlie Bingham meals are a must along with holidays in Tuscany
They ought to be classic Tory voters, so you’ve got nothing to sneer or crow about.
Pre Brexit they would have been Cameron voters, post Brexit white working class voters are more likely Conservatives but pensioners are more the Tory core vote now than either.
The swiftest way for Waitrose LDs to go back to the Tories would probably be Tugendhat as next Tory leader and big Labour wealth and CGT taxes
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As someone who knows of Waitrose but doesn't use them, I'm unfamiliar with what a "Waitrose Users Group" thinks. I'm sure he's well aware of issues relating to health and social care not only from his personal experience and it may be those which resonate most with the LD voter bloc and those who might be persuaded to vote Liberal Democrat.
I accept that's just one area but I really don't know what has irritated you. What is it you want him to say or point out?
Some liberal perspectives would be welcome.
Again, fine, but I don't know to what specifically you are referring. I hear Mark Dolan claiming free speech is being suppressed such that we won't be allowed to talk about migration or Net Zero. I wasn't aware anything so draconian was being suggested - while I'm no supporter for example, I wouldn't want GBN banned.
I had to look up Mark Dolan.
You know, the issue of free speech, in our social media intermediated age, is PRECISELY where we need the Lib Dems to be contributing.
No I would not ban GBN. However I would strip their ability to call themselves N.
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Lots of discussion about “constructive opposition.” If the policy is good we will support it. If it’s bad we’ll say so.
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Lots of discussion about “constructive opposition.” If the policy is good we will support it. If it’s bad we’ll say so.
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Well, given of the next 50 target seats, 38 are held by the Conservatives, that's understandable. Davey has also spoken about increasing CGT (a little vague round the edges) and given most of his voters go to Waitrose or Gail's (apparently), he may have to tread carefully on the "soak the rich" meme. A more likely target therefore is business and particularly those organisations (utility companies) who are gouging us whether we shop at Waitrose or not.
It also means asking hard questions about the wisdom of allowing foreign companies to own so much of our infrastructure so that the money made in Britain is used to subsidise the costs of inhabitants of other countries.
Hopefully the economic ideas will be fleshed out a little in the next couple of days but we are all waiting to see what Reeves does in the Budget.
It's also worth remembering the current prison crisis, as another example, isn't the result of four months of Labour misrule but fourteen years of Conservative neglect and failure and reminding voters of that isn't a bad idea.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Well, given of the next 50 target seats, 38 are held by the Conservatives, that's understandable. Davey has also spoken about increasing CGT (a little vague round the edges) and given most of his voters go to Waitrose or Gail's (apparently), he may have to tread carefully on the "soak the rich" meme. A more likely target therefore is business and particularly those organisations (utility companies) who are gouging us whether we shop at Waitrose or not.
It also means asking hard questions about the wisdom of allowing foreign companies to own so much of our infrastructure so that the money made in Britain is used to subsidise the costs of inhabitants of other countries.
Hopefully the economic ideas will be fleshed out a little in the next couple of days but we are all waiting to see what Reeves does in the Budget.
It's also worth remembering the current prison crisis, as another example, isn't the result of four months of Labour misrule but fourteen years of Conservative neglect and failure and reminding voters of that isn't a bad idea.
This response is about twenty times more enlightening than anything Davey managed on the podcast.
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
"we will support popular things and oppose unpopular things".
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
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.
Trump declaring that he wants to deport legal immigrants is not a loser for the Democrats. JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
What? You said Springfield was going to lose Trump the election, I said it didn't make any odds. Which position is "obsessing about cats"?
I am interested in the outcome of the presidential election, you think it is going to be determined by your personal opinion of Trump. It isn't.
I also said the Springfield story isn't really about cats; it's about mass deportation - as Trump's comments have made very clear.
"I will start the mass deportations in Springfield."
Wouldn't be the first time
I'm surprised Trump hasn't tried to hire Lionel Hutz as his attorney.
Would do a better job than Habba or Giuliani.
I remember when they came for Apu.
And they took away his live tagging gun. And the backup.
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Lots of discussion about “constructive opposition.” If the policy is good we will support it. If it’s bad we’ll say so.
Apple pie bollocks.
Ok. So should we oppose for the sake of opposition then?
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Well, given of the next 50 target seats, 38 are held by the Conservatives, that's understandable. Davey has also spoken about increasing CGT (a little vague round the edges) and given most of his voters go to Waitrose or Gail's (apparently), he may have to tread carefully on the "soak the rich" meme. A more likely target therefore is business and particularly those organisations (utility companies) who are gouging us whether we shop at Waitrose or not.
It also means asking hard questions about the wisdom of allowing foreign companies to own so much of our infrastructure so that the money made in Britain is used to subsidise the costs of inhabitants of other countries.
Hopefully the economic ideas will be fleshed out a little in the next couple of days but we are all waiting to see what Reeves does in the Budget.
It's also worth remembering the current prison crisis, as another example, isn't the result of four months of Labour misrule but fourteen years of Conservative neglect and failure and reminding voters of that isn't a bad idea.
This response is about twenty times more enlightening than anything Davey managed on the podcast.
Very kind of you, sir. Perhaps @RochdalePioneers or @Barnesian could pass my erudition on to Sir Ed's team and he can use that next time he is having a tete-a-tete with Laura K or a News Agent.
The Lib Dems are like the third division footballer who refuses a transfer to a premiership club because he likes being the one famous person in his small hometown. Possibly Newent
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Lots of discussion about “constructive opposition.” If the policy is good we will support it. If it’s bad we’ll say so.
Apple pie bollocks.
Ok. So should we oppose for the sake of opposition then?
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
Lots of discussion about “constructive opposition.” If the policy is good we will support it. If it’s bad we’ll say so.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
Glad to hear that you are here at conference!
I think that I agree with you. It’s a risk, but it’s an opportunity as well. The rationale is this: the population are increasingly moving to opposing the Brexit settlement, but so far no party is leading this retrenchment from the forced consensus.
If we get it right we could gain massively. It would put Keith Donkey under pressure to drop his No No No policy. But if we get it wrong we may as well bring Swinson back
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
No, wasting time and effort on "Rejoining" is an elephant trap of epic proportions.
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
I’m a brexiteer and I would vote Leave again tomorrow (indeed I think events are now beginning to show Leave was the right choice, belatedly)
I’m talking about the raw politics. The Lib Dems had a ginormous open goal in GE 2024. Rejoin could have propelled them to triple digit MPs and who knows what, after that
Instead they are indeed content to be a sad little pressure group as @Gardenwalker says. Waspi and Waitrose
The Lib Dems are like the third division footballer who refuses a transfer to a premiership club because he likes being the one famous person in his small hometown. Possibly Newent
We're like the team which was playing in National League South and has been catapulted into League One and we can't believe the big team which used to thrash us is struggling just above us in the Championship.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
He's not in the slightest bit interested in providing an opposition to Labour. Just in being his own centre-left alternative to the Tories.
Which is why he'll go precisely nowhere. He's lucky to have got as many seats as he did.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
Davey was asked how he’d provide meaningful opposition to Labour. He said the Lib Dems were against the WFA cut and then turned the conversation to how terrible the Tories were.
"we will support popular things and oppose unpopular things".
The WFA cut is wrong - a brutal cliff edge. Opposing it isn’t to be populist.
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The Lib Dems are like the third division footballer who refuses a transfer to a premiership club because he likes being the one famous person in his small hometown. Possibly Newent
And the one time they got to the Premiership with Clegg they loathed it as it made them unpopular
The Lib Dems are like the third division footballer who refuses a transfer to a premiership club because he likes being the one famous person in his small hometown. Possibly Newent
We're like the team which was playing in National League South and has been catapulted into League One and we can't believe the big team which used to thrash us is struggling just above us in the Championship.
Don't worry, our parachute payments will see we are fine....
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
In 2019 the country wanted Brexit done and they had Boris to do it. So they chose Boris. Also STOP BREXIT was mad. It was treasonous. It was Revoke. It was FUCK DEMOCRACY
In 2024 you had a massively unpopular government but also a dislikeable opposition and a unique chance to surge through the middle with one radical, profound, democratic policy: REJOIN
You blew it. The dim witted commentary on here shows why. Too stupid and too timid
The Lib Dems are like the third division footballer who refuses a transfer to a premiership club because he likes being the one famous person in his small hometown. Possibly Newent
That man, though, is a hero. Think Steve Bull. Fuck those utter wankers who want to 'win things'. I'd go full diatribe here but parental duty calls...
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.
My earnings are such that I pay higher rate on my income now, but I'm never going to be paying higher rate on my pension income, so even without a differential on NI (or the Irish equivalent, not sure how it's done here), I'm still going to have an extra tax incentive to save for a pension.
If you're earning enough to be thinking about paying higher rate on your pension income, then it doesn't really matter, and if someone is a basic rate taxpayer anyway, their going to struggle to have the spare income to save more than the minimum anyway, given housing costs.
I just think you've identified a non-issue in the scheme of things.
Its not about paying higher rate of income tax its about oldies paying national insurance on all their income.
Bring in that and the pension contributions I make will be immediately reduced and my giving up work is brought further forward a year or two.
The ability to avoid paying national insurance through salary sacrifice would become pointless if future pension income is liable to national insurance.
The Lib Dems are like the third division footballer who refuses a transfer to a premiership club because he likes being the one famous person in his small hometown. Possibly Newent
And the one time they got to the Premiership with Clegg they loathed it as it made them unpopular
Yes exactly. Psychologically the Lib Dem’s don’t actually want power. They PREFER Waspi and Waitrose, hence their dumbass decision on Rejoin
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
I heard Ed Davey on News Agents earlier this week. Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Anything you want to complain about specifically or are you just having a Sunday afternoon whinge?
I just told you. Davey came across well-meaning but having no actual conception of challenges faced by the country.
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
As I wrote this I thought to myself, the Lib Dems are now the sort of party that supports the WASPI women cause.
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
The weird thing is, the LDs had an open goal and an obvious role: become the Rejoin Now party
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It must be PTSD from Jo Swinson and 2019 when the timing was wrong.
I don’t agree with Leon on this.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
Over the long term, you’re right
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
11 (15 with by-elections) to 72 is better than my wildest dreams -! expected 30 seats, hoped for 40, went to bed at 50, and woke at 70!! They have played a blinder. With Reform still there, Labour's pensioner £300 (the Labour party's University fees) and the Tories broke and still in a mess goodness knows what will happen next time!
No, you fucked it up
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
The Tories will return? Without a popular or charismatic leader - which of the current lot would you suggest? - not a hope. Members are dropping like flies, who under 60 would vote Tory?
You can feel the energy returning to the Tories already. They expected to be killed. Instead they’ve woken up in hospital with broken bones, and the doc just told them they might be out and about in weeks
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise
Comments
If you're earning enough to be thinking about paying higher rate on your pension income, then it doesn't really matter, and if someone is a basic rate taxpayer anyway, their going to struggle to have the spare income to save more than the minimum anyway, given housing costs.
I just think you've identified a non-issue in the scheme of things.
JD Vance admitting on air that he’s happy to “make up stories” to shit stir is not a winner for the GOP.
Immigration was always going to be a tough issue for the Democrats. Putting Trump’s frankly insane plans in the spotlight isn’t a way of making it worse.
And you’re the one obsessing about cats.
(Looking at carotid, I wonder if there was ever a pun about it in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.)
New Iowa poll by Ann Selzer finds that Trump’s lead has shrunk from 18 to 4 points since Harris replaced Biden.
JUNE: Trump 50%, Biden 32%
SEPTEMBER: Trump 47%, Harris 43%
https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1835304645909983688
@Sunil_Prasannan before @Sunil_Prasannan .
Efforts by the media to track Mitrokhin down after the publication of our first volume were, happily, unsuccessful; he was too private a person, and had arrived in Britain too late in life - and with too little experience of the west - to have coped with the glare of publicity. He had, however, perfected the art of being inconspicuous, and travelled unnoticed the length and breadth of the United Kingdom on his senior citizen's railcard. After the tragic death of his wife Nina, a Russian doctor, from motorneurone disease in 1999, he flew around the world on his British passport.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/feb/04/guardianobituaries.russia
(In 1999 he was 76.)
On one hand, there is a double standard. Practical politics dictates that one side can say any old tosh, as long as there is some tiny kernel of truth whereas the other has to have everything lined up perfectly. But you don't admit that. Not out loud.
Maybe Harris is piling up votes where she doesn't need them - nearly missing out on formerly solid red states?
Talking about (illegal) immigration/the border=good for Trump.
Stoking racial violence/talking about deporting those who are already legally in the US=bad for Trump.
Take that @Anabobazina 😉
Of course any poll can be misleading, but that poll is huge.
Is there carryover to neighbouring states, or are you right in suggesting it’s just votes where they won’t do her any good ?
We’ll see; but for now, it’s the opposite of bad news for her.
It’s the failure to project a positive vision of the future that makes the WFA cut seem arbitrary and mean, even though the essential case that pensioners have been cosseted for too long is unanswerable.
So far Labour have come for private school parents, non-doms, pub garden smokers, and junk food fans. I get that none of those are especially popular interest groups, but it does create a picture of something akin to spitefulness, especially since none of these tax or policy changes have a damn thing to do with the core issues facing the country.
Meanwhile, courts focus on penalising private business with bizarre wage awards and killing off the prospect of jobs from the proposed mine in Cumbria.
The budget will be key, but so far it’s looking rather shite for Keir Starmer’s Labour (and Keir Starmer’s Britain).
That would suggest a high level of determination to vote on both sides, to vote even where your state appears to be a lost cause.
I am interested in the outcome of the presidential election, you think it is going to be determined by your personal opinion of Trump. It isn't.
But Kamala obviously doesn’t have a clue about economic issues. Nor on foreign policy. She’s sounder of course then Donald Trump - but who isn’t?
She will win by default, buoyed by vibe-based TikTok momentum.
One part Jacinda Ardern, one part Keir Starmer.
Here’s hoping she has bloody good advisors (as Biden has had).
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/fashion/victoria-starmer-fashion-style-me-and-em-dress-sell-out-b1169338.html
"I will start the mass deportations in Springfield."
Total drivel.
It’s sad, but the Lib Dems seem to have mutated from a gang of liberal policy wonks to somethin akin to a Waitrose users group.
Presume the Liberal Democrat magazine now comes with recipe ideas sponsored by Charlie Bigham.
Medics warn younger generation likely to be more prone to tension headaches, muscle spasms and bone spurs"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/15/rise-in-patients-seeking-botox-to-cure-tech-neck-devices/
Yes for their national voters Waitrose and Charlie Bingham meals are a must along with holidays in Tuscany.
@BillKristol
·
16h
John Boehner used to represent that part of Ohio. He's a decent man. Perhaps he could say something? Perhaps he could further withdraw his support from Trump and Vance?
https://x.com/BillKristol
And in theory, I’m a Davey supporter (and in practice a Lib Dem voter).
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/sep/15/threads-nuclear-apocalypse-bbc-tv-drama-40-years-on-mick-jackson-interview
Thanks to all the PBers who persuaded me to watch it a couple of years ago. Means I don’t have to watch it ever again - and certainly not this October
A terrifying masterpiece
Would do a better job than Habba or Giuliani.
Trump extends his lead according to Atlesintel:
#New General election poll
🔴 Trump 51% (+3)
🔵 Harris 48%
Last poll (7/23) - 🔴 Trump +2
Atlesintel #A+ - 1775 LV - 9/13
I checked, and of course they do.
Not serious.
courts and on the FBI watch list
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310/domestic-terrorism-the-sovereign-citizen-movement
Prime Minister plans to discuss ‘strong migration options’ with Giorgia Meloni when they meet in Rome"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/14/keir-starmer-albania-immigration-scheme-replace-rwanda/
Frank Luntz
@FrankLuntz
Two A+ rated pollsters, polling more than 1,700 likely voters on the same day – with two wildly different results.
TIPP Insights
🔵 Harris: 47% (+4)
🔴 Trump: 43%
(Previous poll was Harris +1)
AtlasIntel
🔴 Trump: 51% (+3)
🔵 Harris: 48%
(Previous poll was Trump +2)
https://x.com/FrankLuntz/status/1835142019028861050
I accept that's just one area but I really don't know what has irritated you. What is it you want him to say or point out?
You'd be mad to rely on a universal phone signal for an ap.
The swiftest way for Waitrose LDs to go back to the Tories would probably be Tugendhat as next Tory leader and big Labour wealth and CGT taxes
You know, the issue of free speech, in our social media intermediated age, is PRECISELY where we need the Lib Dems to be contributing.
No I would not ban GBN.
However I would strip their ability to call themselves N.
Promise an instant return to the SM and CU and a new referendum within a year
Yet they refused to take the chance and waffled vaguely, instead
They should have been the Remainer version of the SNP. Make Rejoin their one big profound policy, their raison d’etre
In a weird volatile election, with lots of Remainers looking warily (and with justification) at Starmer, that could have been explosive. But no
It also means asking hard questions about the wisdom of allowing foreign companies to own so much of our infrastructure so that the money made in Britain is used to subsidise the costs of inhabitants of other countries.
Hopefully the economic ideas will be fleshed out a little in the next couple of days but we are all waiting to see what Reeves does in the Budget.
It's also worth remembering the current prison crisis, as another example, isn't the result of four months of Labour misrule but fourteen years of Conservative neglect and failure and reminding voters of that isn't a bad idea.
There’s no electoral advantage in being a single cause party, at least within the English electoral system where Lib Dem fortunes are won and lost.
Their current policy is relatively sensible - move toward single market membership this parliament. They perhaps should make more of it, but I don’t think it ought to be their sole focus.
wtf are we doing? This is an invasion
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1835332142718497134
But for this one weird election - GE 2024 now gone - I’m right. REJOIN NOW could have electrified everything. Angry Remainers might have stampeded towards them. Lots of pissed off people might have thought: Sod it. Lib Dems. Fuck Brexit. Fuck wishy washy Starmer. Rejoin with the Libs!!
They might have won enough seats to become the Opposition - a game changer
The opportunity is highly unlikely to arise again
The first problem is we have no idea under what terms the EU would consider the UK (re)joining. Would we have to accept the Euro and Schengen for example? I'm sure plenty would object to that.
Even if the EU offered status quo ante referendum, we'd still have issues over QMV and the rebates.
We had to leave because our half-hearted mean-spirited rebate-obsessed membership wasn't doing either us or the EU any good and we took a democratic vote deciding to leave.
There would also be huge resistance to any attempt to reintroduce Freedom of Movement which I believe is a prerequisite for membership of the Single Market - indeed, it would be a huge gift for Reform if anyone were to try.
I remember when they came for Apu.
And they took away his live tagging gun. And the backup.
Perhaps he is due to come out for Dua Lipa or Olivia Rodriguez.
I think that I agree with you. It’s a risk, but it’s an opportunity as well. The rationale is this: the population are increasingly moving to opposing the Brexit settlement, but so far no party is leading this retrenchment from the forced consensus.
If we get it right we could gain massively. It would put Keith Donkey under pressure to drop his No No No policy. But if we get it wrong we may as well bring Swinson back
I’m talking about the raw politics. The Lib Dems had a ginormous open goal in GE 2024. Rejoin could have propelled them to triple digit MPs and who knows what, after that
Instead they are indeed content to be a sad little pressure group as @Gardenwalker says. Waspi and Waitrose
A NOTA / non-socialist alternative to the Tories was the right strategy.
Which is why he'll go precisely nowhere. He's lucky to have got as many seats as he did.
And your comment shows why. You can’t imagine being the actual Opposition, you’re content in your tiny little role
The Tories will return in 2029 (perhaps doing a deal with Reform, but not merging) and you will go back down to 30 seats. You missed your chance
Writer Mike Huckabee was an Obama supporter, so probably no permission to use it.
*On stage. Rather than as a gayer. Which would have been quite an event...
https://www.libdems.org.uk/policy/2019-liberal-democrat-manifesto
Have things changed enough in the meantime?
In 2019 the country wanted Brexit done and they had Boris to do it. So they chose Boris. Also STOP BREXIT was mad. It was treasonous. It was Revoke. It was FUCK DEMOCRACY
In 2024 you had a massively unpopular government but also a dislikeable opposition and a unique chance to surge through the middle with one radical, profound, democratic policy: REJOIN
You blew it. The dim witted commentary on here shows why. Too stupid and too timid
Bring in that and the pension contributions I make will be immediately reduced and my giving up work is brought further forward a year or two.
The ability to avoid paying national insurance through salary sacrifice would become pointless if future pension income is liable to national insurance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvdy6ze761o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3-e7mtDcAs
They genuinely hate Starmer, he’s also a flailing clown making errors everywhere. More pointedly, the Tories have noticed his massive majority is built on ice. Under 34% of the vote on a pitiful turnout
They can win next time, much to their own surprise