Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
This is definitely happening, especially among ‘non-doms’ such as people in Mrs Sunak’s position, who are moving their primary residence to places like the sandpit in anticipation of a tightening of the rules.
UAE is offering 10-year ‘golden visa’ opportunities to anyone with a salary of $100k or making an investment of $500k.
So we get to a point where Government policy is predicated on not "frightening" a tiny group of people who just happen to be very wealthy.
In any case, they could decide to up and move to Singapore or Dubai or wherever at any time anyway.
We know wealth buys speech and presumably those with money are seeking to influence Government policy via articles in CIty AM, the Mail and elsewhere.
From memory 1% pay 60% of the income tax. (A large number of them play football, who have unsuccessfully tried lots of ways to avoid basically being on PAYE).
While I agree with the idea that one shouldn’t make government policy based on not annoying a small handful of very wealthy people, but when the government policy comes across as specifically to screw them to the floor, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that they plan to change their own arrangements to suit that perception.
IFS say 29% not 60%. in March this year That's higher than I expected, though - I had a number of ~27% in my head.
Someone just about in the top 1 per cent of income tax payers, on £200,000, say, will be paying a good £10,000 a year more than in 2009. Our reliance on top earners has continued to grow. That top 1 per cent pay 29 per cent of all income tax now, up from 25 per cent in 2010 and 21 per cent at the turn of the century. Whisper it quietly, but this Tory government has taken a serious chunk out of the incomes of the 1 per cent. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
I think the top 1% of earners are about 10% of total income to put that 29% in perspective.
Agree - it's still a big number.
Do we have international comparators?
I think it's broadly similar, slightly lower in France, Germany (more like 25%), and I think that's more because their middle earners pay more not that top earners pay less.
I posted a link with 2022 data - your Germany number is very out of line on the data on the map there. But it shows a fall in Germany from 13% to 10% over just a year or so in 2022. Similar big recent fall in the UK from 15% to 10%. Norway 14% to 7%. Denmark the other way 1~13% to 18%.
What an interesting set of numbers.
Flight of Oligarchs, impact of COVID? The swings are a bit old for impact of the Ukraine War.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Totally tangential, a video from the other day about a road "paved with German helmets".
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
I don’t particularly have an issue with a clothing allowance for the PMs partner. Most people have to pay for suits etc out of their salary (and it’s not even tax deductible).
But it should be state funded
I don't see anything wrong with suppliers providing the clothes for free provided there is a clear set of rules
1) Must be a UK designer 2) where used No 10 press office will provide a list of the clothes provided
Remember there are significant benefits to a designer for just getting a dress on TV / media - the quid pro quo is simple, free clothes in return for some publicity ..
I don’t like the idea of the PM being used for promotional purposes beyond the very generic (British cars etc)
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
There will never be a means of waging war that completely avoids civilian casualties.
Until the universal adoption of robot wars as the way to settle disputes...
Well FPV drones seem to be the Ukranians’ favourite method at the moment.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
Question to ponder is what help the Taiwanese secret service might be getting in return?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Totally tangential, a video from the other day about a road "paved with German helmets".
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
The video is genuine - but as the youtube narrator points out, looks like it was done at the depot for scrapping German equipment (see lots of German field guns), not on a road in Croydon.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
Quite. China could have a go but the nutters who deconstruct iPhones (physically and the software) for likes on YouTube would rumble the dodgy batch immediately. And how would you target the batch?
Other things being equal, pagers are more secure than iPhones. Hizbollah should have given more thought to "other things."
Also exactly what part of an iPhone could you remove to add some explosives in a way that isn't obvious. It's not like there is any spare space in there except possibly the battery and if the battery was reduced the seriously reduced battery life would be obvious.
Indeed, not to mention the rather large amount of security in Apple’s supply chain. Right now there’s new iPhones being transported on 747 freighters chartered specifically for the purpose, accompanied by Apple’s own security peeps.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Totally tangential, a video from the other day about a road "paved with German helmets".
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
The video is genuine - but as the youtube narrator points out, looks like it was done at the depot for scrapping German equipment (see lots of German field guns), not on a road in Croydon.
Yep - the one thing I can't spot is the Purley Way reference.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
The issue is the time and space to do it (o think someone said 500 hours). Easiest to do that before it leaves the factory
If it takes one man 10 minutes to modify one device, then it takes 500 man-hours (30,000 minutes) to modify 3,000 of them.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
I guess their view is you cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg.
Makes one wonder how and why the Israelis made such a bog of defending their southern border last October.
Especially given they ignored warnings from neighbours.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The other point is that while tactically brilliant, what analysis I've seen says that it won't do much to affect Hezbollah's capability other than temporarily. And it's likely to presage a much more serious conflict (which is quite likely Netanyahu's intention).
Whether that ends up being to Israel's benefit is questionable.
I remember one poster on PB several weeks back predicting that there would be an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah by now. Thankfully, that prediction was a poor one.
It seems in both parties' interests to keep attacking the other on a limited scale, but to steer away from major conflict. This has the obvious danger of one or both sides miscalculating and the situation escalating.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
Question to ponder is what help the Taiwanese secret service might be getting in return?
Maybe the Israeli's ordered the custom pager design "Batman Begins" style*. That is, the pager without the explosive battery, but with the modified circuit board. Then they order explosive filled batteries from somewhere else.
*In the film, Bruce Wayne and Lucius Fox order nondestript parts for his equipment from various Chinese companies, then assemble them.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
The only example I know of is for broadcast meteorologists, who receive a clothing allowance for clothes in which to present the weather forecast. Although there's one RTÉ forecaster who doesn't demonstrate any evidence of using the allowance.
Definite suspicion that some of the others are using the allowance to dress themselves for cocktail parties after their broadcast duties are complete, but I think that's an acceptable perk of the job.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Can you really not see the difference between (a) the PM attending the Euro finals in his official capacity; and (b) an Arsenal fan who happens to be PM going to a series of home matches ?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
The issue is the time and space to do it (o think someone said 500 hours). Easiest to do that before it leaves the factory
If it takes one man 10 minutes to modify one device, then it takes 500 man-hours (30,000 minutes) to modify 3,000 of them.
I wasn’t questioning the maths - it’s plausible. Just saying it’s not easy to pull something out of the shipping channel and, presumably, hard to do once landed in Iran or Syria. So Taiwan by process of elimination
From what I have heard of all the party conferences I am surprised this isn't more commonplace. Events where a large number of people party and get drunk, away from home then I am sure a number of advances are made that are inappropriate and go very badly wrong. A slapped face was and probably still is the response in most cases, although if it is really inappropriate, a serial offender, or there is a power difference between the two parties (eg Chris Rennard) that is rather more serious.
Sounds very implausible - steels helmets rust and would collapse over time. Steel junk isn't a common component in roads.
The scrap vault would have been higher. The video of steamrollering helmets makes more sense as increasing the density for shipping to a steel works for recycling.
The paths around the Qaws an-Nasr in Baghdad are paved with Iranian helmets, replete with holes from the bullets and shrapnel that wasted their previous owners. MattW would do his fucking nut.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Might be total tripe since gleaned from glances at twitter, but some suggestions that the pagers were supplied via Hungary and the explosive was injected into them there, and that software was installed to exploit a hardware glitch that allowed the batteries to heat sufficiently to detonate the explosive remotely
Quite. China could have a go but the nutters who deconstruct iPhones (physically and the software) for likes on YouTube would rumble the dodgy batch immediately. And how would you target the batch?
Other things being equal, pagers are more secure than iPhones. Hizbollah should have given more thought to "other things."
Also exactly what part of an iPhone could you remove to add some explosives in a way that isn't obvious. It's not like there is any spare space in there except possibly the battery and if the battery was reduced the seriously reduced battery life would be obvious.
There's certainly very little spare space in modern smartphones. Though I've seen some speculation that it might be possible to use a very small amount of explosive within the battery, as an accelerator, to ignite the battery, possibly explosively. That would probably need the cooperation of the battery manufacturer, though. (Some iPhone batteries are made in China, I think?)
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
..well someone has to do it...
Not when the taxpayer's paying for it, though!
I don't know if it has been mentioned but Lady Victoria Sponger is trending on Twitter/X.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
Question to ponder is what help the Taiwanese secret service might be getting in return?
The Taiwanese manufacturer claims the pagers were made by a European outfit who licensed the design and IP.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
This particular story is about accepting gifts as a Leader of the Opposition. Gift rules are much tighter for ministers. Starmer is unusual amongst recent prime ministers for having a long period as non minister prior to being PM. The only other one is David Cameron.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
Question to ponder is what help the Taiwanese secret service might be getting in return?
The Taiwanese manufacturer claims the pagers were made by a European outfit who licensed the design and IP.
From what I have heard of all the party conferences I am surprised this isn't more commonplace. Events where a large number of people party and get drunk, away from home then I am sure a number of advances are made that are inappropriate and go very badly wrong. A slapped face was and probably still is the response in most cases, although if it is really inappropriate, a serial offender, or there is a power difference between the two parties (eg Chris Rennard) that is rather more serious.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The other point is that while tactically brilliant, what analysis I've seen says that it won't do much to affect Hezbollah's capability other than temporarily. And it's likely to presage a much more serious conflict (which is quite likely Netanyahu's intention).
Whether that ends up being to Israel's benefit is questionable.
I remember one poster on PB several weeks back predicting that there would be an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah by now. Thankfully, that prediction was a poor one.
It seems in both parties' interests to keep attacking the other on a limited scale, but to steer away from major conflict. This has the obvious danger of one or both sides miscalculating and the situation escalating.
That was my point; this quite likely ends that unspoken agreement.
The issue isn't really 'was the fairly low level of collateral damage worth it', so much as whether or not the operation's objectives were worth the escalation. Of course, it's at least reasonably likely that escalation was one of the objectives.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
I would expect any PM to be an Arsenal fan and go to matches because he wants to. I would expect the PM usually to pay his way, like people on minimum wage have to, and the state to pick up a massive bill for the security costs of him being there.
He might learn a lot if he joined, for example, the Carlisle United away crowd on the journey, the match, and the return when playing Gillingham on a wet Tuesday night in January.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Was wondering for a sec why there were Russian tanks in Scotland
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
Question to ponder is what help the Taiwanese secret service might be getting in return?
The Taiwanese manufacturer claims the pagers were made by a European outfit who licensed the design and IP.
Instead, Mr Hsu has said he licensed his trade mark to a company in Hungary called BAC Consulting to use the Gold Apollo name on their own pagers. BBC attempts to contact BAC have so far been unsuccessful.
“You look at the pictures from Lebanon,” Mr Hsu told reporters outside his firm's offices on Wednesday. "They don’t have any mark saying Made in Taiwan on them, we did not make those pagers!”..
...Mr Hsu said it was pagers made by BAC Consulting that were used in the Lebanon attacks. He told reporters that his company had signed an agreement with BAC Consulting three years ago.
The money transfers from BAC had been "very strange", he added. There had been problems with the payments, which had come through the Middle East, he told reporters, but he did not go into detail.
Initially, he said, BAC wanted to buy pagers from Gold Apollo to sell in Europe. But after about a year they came up with a new plan to make their own pagers and licensed Gold Apollo's name.
"We only provide brand trademark authorisation and have no involvement in the design or manufacturing of this product,” a statement from Gold Apollo said.
But the fact there is now a team from the Taipei investigation bureau inside his office – with large numbers of carboard boxes - suggests the Taiwanese authorities are not entirely reassured...
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The other point is that while tactically brilliant, what analysis I've seen says that it won't do much to affect Hezbollah's capability other than temporarily. And it's likely to presage a much more serious conflict (which is quite likely Netanyahu's intention).
Whether that ends up being to Israel's benefit is questionable.
I remember one poster on PB several weeks back predicting that there would be an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah by now. Thankfully, that prediction was a poor one.
It seems in both parties' interests to keep attacking the other on a limited scale, but to steer away from major conflict. This has the obvious danger of one or both sides miscalculating and the situation escalating.
Some of the external parties have the same incentive. Russia and China both want enough to be catching fire in the Middle East to keep the US busy there, but not so much that they seriously damage trade.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
I would expect any PM to be an Arsenal fan and go to matches because he wants to. I would expect the PM usually to pay his way, like people on minimum wage have to, and the state to pick up a massive bill for the security costs of him being there.
He might learn a lot if he joined, for example, the Carlisle United away crowd on the journey, the match, and the return when playing Gillingham on a wet Tuesday night in January.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
I would expect any PM to be an Arsenal fan and go to matches because he wants to. I would expect the PM usually to pay his way, like people on minimum wage have to, and the state to pick up a massive bill for the security costs of him being there.
He might learn a lot if he joined, for example, the Carlisle United away crowd on the journey, the match, and the return when playing Gillingham on a wet Tuesday night in January.
On this I rather feel sorry for Starmer. He will need his security team around him, as a sad fact of modern life. How then does he get to watch Arsenal? In his season ticketed seat? Logistics seem to mitigate against that. So the club steps in and he gets 'free' hospitality. And then is portrayed in a negative light for wanting to engage in his hobby of watching Arsenal.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Was wondering for a sec why there were Russian tanks in Scotland
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
This is definitely happening, especially among ‘non-doms’ such as people in Mrs Sunak’s position, who are moving their primary residence to places like the sandpit in anticipation of a tightening of the rules.
UAE is offering 10-year ‘golden visa’ opportunities to anyone with a salary of $100k or making an investment of $500k.
So we get to a point where Government policy is predicated on not "frightening" a tiny group of people who just happen to be very wealthy.
In any case, they could decide to up and move to Singapore or Dubai or wherever at any time anyway.
We know wealth buys speech and presumably those with money are seeking to influence Government policy via articles in CIty AM, the Mail and elsewhere.
From memory 1% pay 60% of the income tax. (A large number of them play football, who have unsuccessfully tried lots of ways to avoid basically being on PAYE).
While I agree with the idea that one shouldn’t make government policy based on not annoying a small handful of very wealthy people, but when the government policy comes across as specifically to screw them to the floor, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that they plan to change their own arrangements to suit that perception.
IFS say 29% not 60%. in March this year That's higher than I expected, though - I had a number of ~27% in my head.
Someone just about in the top 1 per cent of income tax payers, on £200,000, say, will be paying a good £10,000 a year more than in 2009. Our reliance on top earners has continued to grow. That top 1 per cent pay 29 per cent of all income tax now, up from 25 per cent in 2010 and 21 per cent at the turn of the century. Whisper it quietly, but this Tory government has taken a serious chunk out of the incomes of the 1 per cent. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
I would expect any PM to be an Arsenal fan and go to matches because he wants to. I would expect the PM usually to pay his way, like people on minimum wage have to, and the state to pick up a massive bill for the security costs of him being there.
He might learn a lot if he joined, for example, the Carlisle United away crowd on the journey, the match, and the return when playing Gillingham on a wet Tuesday night in January.
On this I rather feel sorry for Starmer. He will need his security team around him, as a sad fact of modern life. How then does he get to watch Arsenal? In his season ticketed seat? Logistics seem to mitigate against that. So the club steps in and he gets 'free' hospitality. And then is portrayed in a negative light for wanting to engage in his hobby of watching Arsenal.
Why feel sorry for him? It’s not like he’s PM for life, he can choose not to watch his team for a while - like many have to if it’s a toss up between finances, family plans etc.
Ah poor Keir, can’t watch his football team because he’s PM.
Honestly - why can’t people now accept you make choices and sacrifices. Don’t fucking bleat about being papped if you decide to make your living from being famous. Likewise if you choose to try and be PM don’t complain about the intrusion into your family life or not being able to do something like watch Arsenal (again, loads of people can’t watch them who love them).
You sacrifice these things for attaining the highest elected power in the land. The chance to drive the country in a direction you believe in. To meet other heads of states, intervene in world affairs. Make shitloads of money afterwards.
There should be no sympathy. He chose it. Get a loan and buy clothes as it will be wiped with your first speech after retiring as PM.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
The issue is the time and space to do it (o think someone said 500 hours). Easiest to do that before it leaves the factory
If it takes one man 10 minutes to modify one device, then it takes 500 man-hours (30,000 minutes) to modify 3,000 of them.
I wasn’t questioning the maths - it’s plausible. Just saying it’s not easy to pull something out of the shipping channel and, presumably, hard to do once landed in Iran or Syria. So Taiwan by process of elimination
Also, I believe it’s 5,000 - creating a more plausibly casualty rate, as a decent number of them must have been lying about on tables or in pockets hanging up somewhere.
A minor detail of the reporting suggested the pagers received the message and had been coded to bleep a few times before they went off - presumably so the user would go get it - but that video from the Lebanese market, if genuine, contains no sign of it - the explosion comes out of the blue.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He's a keen, devoted, passionate die hard Arsenal fan.
Isn't there a waiting list for season tickets. He is probably on that ?
Pennsylvania GOP state senator calling out more lies about Haitians.
https://x.com/CameraForSenate/status/1836135759474233415 This is not true. The business owner provides transportation for workers to get to & from his facility. These are not immigrants being bussed in by Kamala. I follow you & repost but you are playing into the hands of people who are jeopardizing the safety of innocent children in our local school. These Haitians are working hard, sending their children to school and opening businesses. They are here legally. They did not cross our border. Many are professionals who escaped horrific conditions in their home country. There was no workforce in Charleroi a few years ago when a business owner desperately needed them. He advertised and looked for workers for a long time. Before shutting down completely, he hired an agency that connected immigrants who were vetted and LEGAL to work in his facility. Instead of closing, he now has three shifts working around the clock. He also renovated multiple dilapidated apartment buildings and put them back on the tax roll for the town. He’s been vilified wrongly. Please, check the facts before posting information the jeopardizes the safety of good, hard-working people. Thank you...
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
Question to ponder is what help the Taiwanese secret service might be getting in return?
The Taiwanese manufacturer claims the pagers were made by a European outfit who licensed the design and IP.
Instead, Mr Hsu has said he licensed his trade mark to a company in Hungary called BAC Consulting to use the Gold Apollo name on their own pagers. BBC attempts to contact BAC have so far been unsuccessful.
“You look at the pictures from Lebanon,” Mr Hsu told reporters outside his firm's offices on Wednesday. "They don’t have any mark saying Made in Taiwan on them, we did not make those pagers!”..
...Mr Hsu said it was pagers made by BAC Consulting that were used in the Lebanon attacks. He told reporters that his company had signed an agreement with BAC Consulting three years ago.
The money transfers from BAC had been "very strange", he added. There had been problems with the payments, which had come through the Middle East, he told reporters, but he did not go into detail.
Initially, he said, BAC wanted to buy pagers from Gold Apollo to sell in Europe. But after about a year they came up with a new plan to make their own pagers and licensed Gold Apollo's name.
"We only provide brand trademark authorisation and have no involvement in the design or manufacturing of this product,” a statement from Gold Apollo said.
But the fact there is now a team from the Taipei investigation bureau inside his office – with large numbers of carboard boxes - suggests the Taiwanese authorities are not entirely reassured...
My reading is the Gold Apollo CEO probably is telling the truth but there were massive red flags he chose to ignore. Presumably it was important to the Israeli security services that the pagers should be branded Taiwanese to avoid Hezbollah having any suspicions.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He's a keen, devoted, passionate die hard Arsenal fan.
Isn't there a waiting list for season tickets. He is probably on that ?
I started supporting Man Utd in 1953 and when I moved to North Wales in 1965 I bought a season ticket which I only relinquished a few years ago as I tired of the driving to the matches
Pennsylvania GOP state senator calling out more lies about Haitians.
https://x.com/CameraForSenate/status/1836135759474233415 This is not true. The business owner provides transportation for workers to get to & from his facility. These are not immigrants being bussed in by Kamala. I follow you & repost but you are playing into the hands of people who are jeopardizing the safety of innocent children in our local school. These Haitians are working hard, sending their children to school and opening businesses. They are here legally. They did not cross our border. Many are professionals who escaped horrific conditions in their home country. There was no workforce in Charleroi a few years ago when a business owner desperately needed them. He advertised and looked for workers for a long time. Before shutting down completely, he hired an agency that connected immigrants who were vetted and LEGAL to work in his facility. Instead of closing, he now has three shifts working around the clock. He also renovated multiple dilapidated apartment buildings and put them back on the tax roll for the town. He’s been vilified wrongly. Please, check the facts before posting information the jeopardizes the safety of good, hard-working people. Thank you...
If Trump loses what are the odds the GOP will spend the next four years tearing itself apart in recrimination and despair?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
That is understandable but when you become PM you have to adjust to the demands of Office
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
I would expect any PM to be an Arsenal fan and go to matches because he wants to. I would expect the PM usually to pay his way, like people on minimum wage have to, and the state to pick up a massive bill for the security costs of him being there.
He might learn a lot if he joined, for example, the Carlisle United away crowd on the journey, the match, and the return when playing Gillingham on a wet Tuesday night in January.
On this I rather feel sorry for Starmer. He will need his security team around him, as a sad fact of modern life. How then does he get to watch Arsenal? In his season ticketed seat? Logistics seem to mitigate against that. So the club steps in and he gets 'free' hospitality. And then is portrayed in a negative light for wanting to engage in his hobby of watching Arsenal.
Or arsenal moves seats around to make space for the security team and the state pays the cost of those seats
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the threshold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists. Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants. Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
Four years later, as Vance considered a career in GOP politics, he asked a former college professor to delete the article. That professor, Brad Nelson, taught Vance at Ohio State University while Vance was an undergraduate student. After Vance graduated, Nelson asked him to contribute to a blog he ran for the non-partisan Center for World Conflict and Peace.
Nelson told CNN that during the 2016 Republican primary he agreed to delete the article at Vance’s request, so that Vance might have an easier time getting a job in Republican politics. However, the article, titled “A Blueprint for the GOP,” remains viewable on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
“A significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or ‘self-deporting’ them),” Vance wrote. “Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens. The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party’s platform.”..
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
The 25% is the suggested number of millionaire pensioners and I did not say 75% needed the WFA but many millions do
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists. Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants. Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
All good points.
How are Hezbollah stopping their rockets from hitting non combatants again?
The best solution would be for them all to grow the feck up and start talking and not fighting.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
The Russian desire to put all their munitions in one easy-to-explode location is, to put it mildly, bizarre. In peace time maybe. But when you are the aggressor and have had time to put your stuff-go-boom into multiple minor caches, it rather smacks of overconfidence/stupidity...
I think it was supposed to be buried underground, or otherwise hard to explode. The Irish Sun describes the ammunition depot as reputedly indestructible.
Dare I say that it would be a perfect Storm Shadow target, though it seems to be twice as far from the Ukrainian border as the maximum Storm Shadow range.
The range of Ukrainian drones seems to have caught Russia flat-footed. When their airfields in Murmansk are being targeted, I imagine Putin is questioning the lack of briefings on how this was A Thing.
Saw an interesting thread recently about how the lack of oil storage capacity (as a result of stuff-go-boom) means Russia is having to close down large numbers of oil wells. Last time this happened was at the fall of the Soviet Union. Some of those wells and pipelines took many years to get back up and running - and required much Western cash and expertise.
The Russian winter is about to screw over their hydrocarbon industry again. Pipelines freeze up - and become candles dozens or hundreds of miles long. If there is one thing that will drag Russia to the negotiating table, it is the wholesale destruction of their hydrocarbons industry west of the Urals. Their infrastructure can't be moved - and it seems, nor can it be protected from air attacks with cheap and cheerful drones. The Ukrainians may be holding back until November 5th and the US election, for (Biden) fear of gas prices wrecking the Democrats' chances of winning. But shortly after that, expect everything that looks like a refinery or processing centre or distribution hub to be hit in one night.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists. Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants. Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
All good points.
How are Hezbollah stopping their rockets from hitting non combatants again?
The best solution would be for them all to grow the feck up and start talking and not fighting.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Answer: Starmer pays for his ticket; Arsenal very kindly provide whatever is needed seat/position wise for security so saving the tax payer. Starmer's honour secured, Arsenal get good publicity. Another 1-0 home win for the Arsenal.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
We dont know if it is or not, What favours will the benefactor get in return ?
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Quite so. G's was yet another low-information post. Similar to the odious Sarah Vine who suggested he should "just watch the games on telly like everyone else". I submit that she knows sweet FA about football and even less about proper football fans, you know, the people who actually attend matches.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
That's an interesting and surprising post.
What I would say is that it is very unfortunate that people don't feel able to express their views. There is a very obvious path that can be observed, on one day people are making really lucid and impressive comments, then they 'take a side' and the quality of their comments and discourse goes rapidly downhill, to the point where it just reiterates propoganda. I am saying this now because it is something that can often be clearly observed in comments on Russia/Ukraine.
There are certain topics wherefrom people on PB are "not allowed" to dissent.
And if they do then there is a pile on. Most notable as you say on Ukraine/Russia where any deviation from the Ukraine will be in Moscow by next Christmas/Easter/Start of the Grouse Shooting Season line was, and to an extent still is met by the classic PB "pile on" (analogous to being beaten around the head with dandelions, that said).
People on PB get it into their heads that there is a "right" way to look at the world. Trump is of course another and hence Nick's acuity in understanding the dynamics of him posting what he did.
It's disappointing that PB should be like this but there you go.
Is this what is called starting a fight in an empty room?
Not at all. Look at Nick's hesitancy to put forward his view on Russia/Ukraine. It is because of the reaction to anything dissenting posted about Russia/Ukraine on PB.
That's true. I mean somebody may disagree with him and that would never do.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Answer: Starmer pays for his ticket; Arsenal very kindly provide whatever is needed seat/position wise for security so saving the tax payer. Starmer's honour secured, Arsenal get good publicity. Another 1-0 home win for the Arsenal.
It's almost certainly cheaper and easier for Arsenal just to give him a free hospitality pass for the matches, it a suite that is setup to accommodate his security detail, without the club's staff jumping through ludicrous logistical hoops every home game.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
And then the PM is asked to make a judgement call on whether the Super-Duper-Premier League including Arsenal is a good thing.
The PM should not be taking money or favours from anyone. Big or small.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists.
Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants.
Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
Imagine a world in which terrorists are relaxed about the tools of their trade and leave them out in the open where any passing Mossad operative could grab it and have access to messages from the leadership of the organisation.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
You weren't outraged at the confected outrage over Tory MPs supposedly betting on the date of the election (which Labour quietly forgot about when there was shown to be no wrong doing).
You're in Government. If you can't be "whiter than white" - suck it up.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Comments
So it looks genuine, albeit probably a cockup at the time.
https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/118925/
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
It seems in both parties' interests to keep attacking the other on a limited scale, but to steer away from major conflict. This has the obvious danger of one or both sides miscalculating and the situation escalating.
*In the film, Bruce Wayne and Lucius Fox order nondestript parts for his equipment from various Chinese companies, then assemble them.
Definite suspicion that some of the others are using the allowance to dress themselves for cocktail parties after their broadcast duties are complete, but I think that's an acceptable perk of the job.
That's not to say it won't change, of course.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Though I've seen some speculation that it might be possible to use a very small amount of explosive within the battery, as an accelerator, to ignite the battery, possibly explosively.
That would probably need the cooperation of the battery manufacturer, though. (Some iPhone batteries are made in China, I think?)
It does seem a lot of gifts though.
.
😈
The issue isn't really 'was the fairly low level of collateral damage worth it', so much as whether or not the operation's objectives were worth the escalation.
Of course, it's at least reasonably likely that escalation was one of the objectives.
He might learn a lot if he joined, for example, the Carlisle United away crowd on the journey, the match, and the return when playing Gillingham on a wet Tuesday night in January.
...Caught in the crisis, Taiwanese firm Gold Apollo's founder Hsu Ching-Kuang flatly denied his company had anything to do with the attacks.
Instead, Mr Hsu has said he licensed his trade mark to a company in Hungary called BAC Consulting to use the Gold Apollo name on their own pagers. BBC attempts to contact BAC have so far been unsuccessful.
“You look at the pictures from Lebanon,” Mr Hsu told reporters outside his firm's offices on Wednesday. "They don’t have any mark saying Made in Taiwan on them, we did not make those pagers!”..
...Mr Hsu said it was pagers made by BAC Consulting that were used in the Lebanon attacks. He told reporters that his company had signed an agreement with BAC Consulting three years ago.
The money transfers from BAC had been "very strange", he added. There had been problems with the payments, which had come through the Middle East, he told reporters, but he did not go into detail.
Initially, he said, BAC wanted to buy pagers from Gold Apollo to sell in Europe. But after about a year they came up with a new plan to make their own pagers and licensed Gold Apollo's name.
"We only provide brand trademark authorisation and have no involvement in the design or manufacturing of this product,” a statement from Gold Apollo said.
But the fact there is now a team from the Taipei investigation bureau inside his office – with large numbers of carboard boxes - suggests the Taiwanese authorities are not entirely reassured...
Go to the user's comment page and add ?Page=p2 to the url, like
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/BlancheLivermore?Page=p2
And change the number at the end to get the page of comments you want to see
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
Ah poor Keir, can’t watch his football team because he’s PM.
Honestly - why can’t people now accept you make choices and sacrifices. Don’t fucking bleat about being papped if you decide to make your living from being famous. Likewise if you choose to try and be PM don’t complain about the intrusion into your family life or not being able to do something like watch Arsenal (again, loads of people can’t watch them who love them).
You sacrifice these things for attaining the highest elected power in the land. The chance to drive the country in a direction you believe in. To meet other heads of states, intervene in world affairs. Make shitloads of money afterwards.
There should be no sympathy. He chose it. Get a loan and buy clothes as it will be wiped with your first speech after retiring as PM.
A minor detail of the reporting suggested the pagers received the message and had been coded to bleep a few times before they went off - presumably so the user would go get it - but that video from the Lebanese market, if genuine, contains no sign of it - the explosion comes out of the blue.
I bet they do until the next time
https://x.com/MinisterAenM/status/1836299969986199800
Isn't there a waiting list for season tickets. He is probably on that ?
https://x.com/CameraForSenate/status/1836135759474233415
This is not true. The business owner provides transportation for workers to get to & from his facility. These are not immigrants being bussed in by Kamala. I follow you & repost but you are playing into the hands of people who are jeopardizing the safety of innocent children in our local school. These Haitians are working hard, sending their children to school and opening businesses. They are here legally. They did not cross our border. Many are professionals who escaped horrific conditions in their home country. There was no workforce in Charleroi a few years ago when a business owner desperately needed them. He advertised and looked for workers for a long time. Before shutting down completely, he hired an agency that connected immigrants who were vetted and LEGAL to work in his facility. Instead of closing, he now has three shifts working around the clock. He also renovated multiple dilapidated apartment buildings and put them back on the tax roll for the town. He’s been vilified wrongly. Please, check the facts before posting information the jeopardizes the safety of good, hard-working people. Thank you...
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
We got lucky with the view for the last few billion years.
This photograph shows us the other side of the Moon, which we usually do not see. It was captured by the Chinese Chang'e 5-T1 spacecraft.
https://x.com/MAstronomers/status/1836071363846746267
Might bring it closer to definition of booby trap
I've decided on canned soup as my best form of hot sustenance during my upcoming walk through the wilds of Wessex
I've bought a couple of little camping gas cannisters with an attachment to make them a gas 'hob'
Heating up soup in cans mean I can save my mess tin for boiling water for coffee in the mornings
I'm definitely getting a tin or two of Baxters Cullen Skink, it's £3.90 in Waitrose
https://shop.baxters.com/products/cullen-skink
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants.
Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/17/politics/jd-vance-delete-2012-blog-post-attacking-gop-anti-immigrant-rhetoric/index.html
A week after President Barack Obama won reelection in November 2012, JD Vance, then a law student at Yale, wrote a scathing rebuke of the Republican Party’s stance on migrants and minorities, criticizing it for being “openly hostile to non-whites” and for alienating “Blacks, Latinos, [and] the youth.”
Four years later, as Vance considered a career in GOP politics, he asked a former college professor to delete the article. That professor, Brad Nelson, taught Vance at Ohio State University while Vance was an undergraduate student. After Vance graduated, Nelson asked him to contribute to a blog he ran for the non-partisan Center for World Conflict and Peace.
Nelson told CNN that during the 2016 Republican primary he agreed to delete the article at Vance’s request, so that Vance might have an easier time getting a job in Republican politics. However, the article, titled “A Blueprint for the GOP,” remains viewable on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
“A significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or ‘self-deporting’ them),” Vance wrote. “Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens. The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party’s platform.”..
How are Hezbollah stopping their rockets from hitting non combatants again?
The best solution would be for them all to grow the feck up and start talking and not fighting.
Saw an interesting thread recently about how the lack of oil storage capacity (as a result of stuff-go-boom) means Russia is having to close down large numbers of oil wells. Last time this happened was at the fall of the Soviet Union. Some of those wells and pipelines took many years to get back up and running - and required much Western cash and expertise.
The Russian winter is about to screw over their hydrocarbon industry again. Pipelines freeze up - and become candles dozens or hundreds of miles long. If there is one thing that will drag Russia to the negotiating table, it is the wholesale destruction of their hydrocarbons industry west of the Urals. Their infrastructure can't be moved - and it seems, nor can it be protected from air attacks with cheap and cheerful drones. The Ukrainians may be holding back until November 5th and the US election, for (Biden) fear of gas prices wrecking the Democrats' chances of winning. But shortly after that, expect everything that looks like a refinery or processing centre or distribution hub to be hit in one night.
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
The PM should not be taking money or favours from anyone. Big or small.
Which to me tells me that we are not paying the Prime Minister enough...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx247wkq137o
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
I think it is Sue Gray
And yes the PM is not paid enough
Indeed I would argue the PM and all mps should have a good pay rise but a ban on receiving any gifts
You're in Government. If you can't be "whiter than white" - suck it up.
Funny old world.