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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
Oh and if we're talking about ignorance about Hezbollah here's a handy guide.
"Nasrallah has also repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel. “It is an aggressive, illegal and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land,” he said in 2005. “It’s destination is manifested in our motto, ‘Death to Israel’.” Hezbollah has also and angrily threatened to destroy U.S. “hegemony” in the Middle East."
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.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
I started off supporting Liverpool because I was a young child who liked supporting the winners and Liverpool were that for much of eighties
But I loved Dalglish even more than Liverpool, so I supported Blackburn after a couple of years of half-hearted support under Souness
I have a Blackburn shirt signed by the whole squad that won the league
Then when I grew up I decided to support the team from where I'm from
So now I have the Saturday stress of seeing Southampton's scores
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Well being PM means some sacrifices and its hardly essential that he needs to carry on watching Arsenal is it? What is it with this football obsession?
It is inevitable that a PM will have myriads of duties and international trips that the ability to attend football matches must be considerably reduced
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Well being PM means some sacrifices and its hardly essential that he needs to carry on watching Arsenal is it? What is it with this football obsession?
Well he is a lifelong fan, loyal season ticket holder and it's his hobby. We say we want leaders who have normal interests and passions and when they do, State Go Away, the other bloke on the internet, says, "not those sorts of normal interests and passions!".
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
Hezbollah, themselves, claim to be an armed militia. And proudly display their extensive armoury. And state they are in a perpetual war with Israel.
They are currently waging actual war on Israel - by bombarding Northern Israel on a daily basis with rockets.
Sinn Féin never claimed to be an armed movement - they claimed that they supported the PIRA, but that was a separate origination. How much of that was bullshit is arguable.
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.
That's all fine of course. The point being that Starmer needs to pay for his ticket - that element of the hospitality pass. Not the whole palaver, which is a matter for the tax payer and Arsenal. of course this is a tedious detail. You would have thought that after Boris, Blair, Beergate and so on, PMs would know that every tedious detail matters, and that we want PMs who are exemplary in their public facing lives WRT integrity and ordinary honest and honourable conduct.
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
This argument seems to be your lot were worse but then Starmer stood on honesty and integrity and receiving £100,000 for goodies and freebies is simply inappropriate and certainly is not acceptable to the public according to the polls
Starmer isn't "my lot" any more than I would hold you personally responsible for the theft of £15 billion from the state by people associated with the Conservative Party.
I am just pointing out that people buying stuff for the Leader of the Opposition isn't remotely in the same league as theft of £15 billion facilitated by the previous government.
I agree with that but the problem here is Starmer was supposed to be above all of this and it now turns out he has benefitted even more than Johnson from freebies
There is no doubt it has cut through and it is not doing Starmer any favours with the public
I don't think he's benefitted more than Johnson. Yet.
It was stated earlier on this thread but I am happy to be corrected
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Why does he have to go to Arsenal matches whilst PM?? Is he such a child he will cry if he misses a match? Can he not just sacrifice watching them live whilst PM?
I’m sure there are loads of things people liked doing before they became top politicians but they can’t because of safety or probity.
What if he just loved going to Spearmint Rhino every week before he was PM? But it’s his hobby. It’s just juvenile bollocks.
Just because he wants to watch his team whilst wearing his Gunners y-fronts everyone has to accommodate his security at the ground, the increased risk to other fans. It costs the tax payer extra, it puts him at risk of pressure re - for example - the football regulator plans.
He’s grown up to say “well for the next few years I will just give it a miss” and then knock himself out, maybe even get on the board of AFC, after he’s stepped down.
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
You are deliberately making that sound sleazy when it is not.
There’s a possibility I could have a gig in the future that requires that both me and my wife to attend lots of balls, posh dinners etc. Would I accept her being given clothes/an allowance to attend these official events? Yes, I think I would.
As a general point of order, I am sure many of us over the years have attended work events (perhaps also bringing partners) that have required us to “dress up” and wouldn’t get an allowance to do so.
I do think the outrage when it is targeted at Starmer in particular is a little confected. But I do think there’s a wider question about how the political class operates with things like this.
Yes, how many of us have the world's media pointed at us, at such events, and have huge pressure to look good when representing a G7 nation?
Sunak in a way wrong footed this lot by putting them in to bat at the beginning of the silly season, but it's their own unforced error which has doubled the length of the s.s. with the October 30 (only six more weeks, guys!) budget. As their stated mission is to Fill The Hole there can't be any policy discussion till November and the resulting vacuum cannot be filled with bossy edicts about smoking in parks and acts of petty cruelty to the elderly. That is why we are here desperately discussing lady S's clothes.
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.
That's all fine of course. The point being that Starmer needs to pay for his ticket - that element of the hospitality pass. Not the whole palaver, which is a matter for the tax payer and Arsenal. of course this is a tedious detail. You would have thought that after Boris, Blair, Beergate and so on, PMs would know that every tedious detail matters, and that we want PMs who are exemplary in their public facing lives WRT integrity and ordinary honest and honourable conduct.
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Arsenal giving him a box on account of the fact he was a loyal season ticket holder before he became PM?
Ah, that is exactly what happened!
But it's hardly vital to his role, and the next time Arsenal want anything from the government, it'll stink.
Do Arsenal give all loyal season ticket holders such privilege? No? If so, they're doing it because he's PM. So what do they get 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.
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Well being PM means some sacrifices and its hardly essential that he needs to carry on watching Arsenal is it? What is it with this football obsession?
Well he is a lifelong fan, loyal season ticket holder and it's his hobby. We say we want leaders who have normal interests and passions and when they do, State Go Away, the other bloke on the internet, says, "not those sorts of normal interests and passions!".
IF you really think the state or a PM's contacts should plough money into premier league coffers just because its footie innit and cannot do without we really have gone bonkers in this country-
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
I haven't mentioned freebies once
You said that there was a secret rulebook that your CPS friends had told you about that required Slalom to hold a press conference about the prosecution of a cabinet minister
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Well being PM means some sacrifices and its hardly essential that he needs to carry on watching Arsenal is it? What is it with this football obsession?
Well he is a lifelong fan, loyal season ticket holder and it's his hobby. We say we want leaders who have normal interests and passions and when they do, State Go Away, the other bloke on the internet, says, "not those sorts of normal interests and passions!".
IF you really think the state or a PM's contacts should plough money into premier league coffers just because its footie innit and cannot do without we really have gone bonkers in this country-
The state did no such thing. The hospitality at Arsenal was a gift from the club!!
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
This argument seems to be your lot were worse but then Starmer stood on honesty and integrity and receiving £100,000 for goodies and freebies is simply inappropriate and certainly is not acceptable to the public according to the polls
Starmer isn't "my lot" any more than I would hold you personally responsible for the theft of £15 billion from the state by people associated with the Conservative Party.
I am just pointing out that people buying stuff for the Leader of the Opposition isn't remotely in the same league as theft of £15 billion facilitated by the previous government.
I agree with that but the problem here is Starmer was supposed to be above all of this and it now turns out he has benefitted even more than Johnson from freebies
There is no doubt it has cut through and it is not doing Starmer any favours with the public
Starmer certainly hasn't benefitted more than Johnson who got journalist gigs worth hundreds of thousands a year indirectly paid for by the Russian state.
The point though, which many people on here are missing is that the rules don't apply to people outside government. Starmer (and Johnson for that matter) haven't broken the "spirit" of the rules as long as they were outside government.
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.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
I made no personal sleight at you and hope your health improves – that was not the point of my post, as I hope you know. But, you have decided to become outraged by a trivial matter – "bloke declares wife's gifts late but then rectifies the error". That's it.
P.S. you're writing "you are simply wrong" doesn't make me so. Engage with my points: what part of my OP was wrong? Go ahead...
The test of opinion on this was the yougov poll which effectively said 62% wrong 13% right so yes you are out of step with public opinion
Yougov also found 72% thought Sunak crap and 22% didn't. You apparenrtly voted for him so your judgement being out of step with public opinion is clearly suspect
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The facts go like this
- The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers.
That one reminds me of the Scottish police force which refused to run Operation Close Pass on A roads because it is not safe for police cyclists .
He told road.cc: “I regularly ride that section of the road and often get close passes. This time, I put in a complaint on the Police Scotland website about the standard of driving and asked for action as I had an especially bad ride involving 10-20 close passes.”
...
Police Scotland responded, saying: “Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We do run Operation Close Pass between April and September, which is designed to educate drivers about the safe passing of cyclists on the road.
“We don’t tend to operate these on open A class roads due to the safety element involved towards the police cyclists. We do however have the A92 as a priority route and have dedicated patrols on it several times a week. The Camera Safety Unit also operate on this road. https://road.cc/content/news/police-scotland-dont-do-cyclist-close-pass-ops-roads-309031
The PM's wife absolutely should be showcasing the best of British designers which can be a huge boost to the UK economy. If she is sent clothes to wear (cf The Saintly Kate) then all well and good.
For the PM it's more tricky. I'm not sure a Welsh & Jefferies suit is going to increase British exports significantly but why not. I don't have a problem with it.
As for freebies such as going to the Emirates I think it doesn't pass the smell test who cares if he is a lifelong Arsenal fan.
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Why does he have to go to Arsenal matches whilst PM?? Is he such a child he will cry if he misses a match? Can he not just sacrifice watching them live whilst PM?
I’m sure there are loads of things people liked doing before they became top politicians but they can’t because of safety or probity.
What if he just loved going to Spearmint Rhino every week before he was PM? But it’s his hobby. It’s just juvenile bollocks.
Just because he wants to watch his team whilst wearing his Gunners y-fronts everyone has to accommodate his security at the ground, the increased risk to other fans. It costs the tax payer extra, it puts him at risk of pressure re - for example - the football regulator plans.
He’s grown up to say “well for the next few years I will just give it a miss” and then knock himself out, maybe even get on the board of AFC, after he’s stepped down.
My hobbies would be much less problematic as PM.
Mosh pit at Metallica? Seems made for the TSG - "So Sir, we are basically having a fight with the public? {strokes truncheon}"
The PM's wife absolutely should be showcasing the best of British designers which can be a huge boost to the UK economy. If she is sent clothes to wear (cf The Saintly Kate) then all well and good.
For the PM it's more tricky. I'm not sure a Welsh & Jefferies suit is going to increase British exports significantly but why not. I don't have a problem with it.
As for freebies such as going to the Emirates I think it doesn't pass the smell test who cares if he is a lifelong Arsenal fan.
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
You are deliberately making that sound sleazy when it is not.
There’s a possibility I could have a gig in the future that requires that both me and my wife to attend lots of balls, posh dinners etc. Would I accept her being given clothes/an allowance to attend these official events? Yes, I think I would.
As a general point of order, I am sure many of us over the years have attended work events (perhaps also bringing partners) that have required us to “dress up” and wouldn’t get an allowance to do so.
I do think the outrage when it is targeted at Starmer in particular is a little confected. But I do think there’s a wider question about how the political class operates with things like this.
Yes, how many of us have the world's media pointed at us, at such events, and have huge pressure to look good when representing a G7 nation?
I'd venture that it would be a low proportion.
True, but then I’m not wholly convinced that it is a pre-requisite for these sort of events to be dressed to the nines in expensive fashion. Maybe I’m a bit sheltered and naive, but it feels to me there’s plenty of clothes being made out there that don’t cost the earth and wouldn’t require political gifts to afford.
I find the argument that we must dress our world leaders in expensive garb a bit odd, really.
That said, as others have mentioned it feels to me like if this this an issue because of pay then they should just get paid more and the gifting culture should be done away with.
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.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
I made no personal sleight at you and hope your health improves – that was not the point of my post, as I hope you know. But, you have decided to become outraged by a trivial matter – "bloke declares wife's gifts late but then rectifies the error". That's it.
P.S. you're writing "you are simply wrong" doesn't make me so. Engage with my points: what part of my OP was wrong? Go ahead...
The test of opinion on this was the yougov poll which effectively said 62% wrong 13% right so yes you are out of step with public opinion
Yougov also found 72% thought Sunak crap and 22% didn't. You apparenrtly voted for him so your judgement being out of step with public opinion is clearly suspect
Not sure your point as my opinion is in step with the 62% who consider Starmers freebies are wrong
The PM's wife absolutely should be showcasing the best of British designers which can be a huge boost to the UK economy. If she is sent clothes to wear (cf The Saintly Kate) then all well and good.
For the PM it's more tricky. I'm not sure a Welsh & Jefferies suit is going to increase British exports significantly but why not. I don't have a problem with it.
As for freebies such as going to the Emirates I think it doesn't pass the smell test who cares if he is a lifelong Arsenal fan.
The PM's wife absolutely should be showcasing the best of British designers which can be a huge boost to the UK economy. If she is sent clothes to wear (cf The Saintly Kate) then all well and good.
For the PM it's more tricky. I'm not sure a Welsh & Jefferies suit is going to increase British exports significantly but why not. I don't have a problem with it.
As for freebies such as going to the Emirates I think it doesn't pass the smell test who cares if he is a lifelong Arsenal fan.
We should dress him in a Burberry track suit
And very smart he would look in it too.
No problem going down the Arsenal, he would fit right in
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.
Funny old world.
And there is a decent argument that she *should* have an allowance.
She’s not an employee or in a public role, but will incur additional costs when acting in her capacity as the PMs wife. It’s reasonable that the state should pay
Good post. There is certainly a case for that, but in the absence of such an allowance it seems reasonable that the Labour Party should pay, which in effect it did – it's just that one of its biggest donors ringfenced the funding for her wardrobe rather than chucked it into general party coffers (which could then be pissed up the wall at various party events).
“In effect it did” doesn’t cover it.
Your boy did wrong.
He shouldn’t have taken the clothes or the tickets. Caesar’s wife and all that.
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
I haven't mentioned freebies once
You said that there was a secret rulebook that your CPS friends had told you about that required Slalom to hold a press conference about the prosecution of a cabinet minister
Again wrong, it is a guide for when the CPS should make public statements, and given the circumstances and timeframe it was felt appropriate.
I am trying to recall the previous occasion a sitting cabinet minister was charged by the CPS?
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.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Lots of women with very modest means do their best to look right for special occasions but don't expect others to pay for it.
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.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I was attempting to use an easy to understand metaphor on a BETTING site, but my point seems to have gone utterly over your head, so let me explain again.
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
And as a UK taxpayer that is exactly why you would use EIS.
Capital gains tax free and losses can be offset against income tax
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
I haven't mentioned freebies once
You said that there was a secret rulebook that your CPS friends had told you about that required Slalom to hold a press conference about the prosecution of a cabinet minister
Again wrong, it is a guide for when the CPS should make public statements, and given the circumstances and timeframe it was felt appropriate.
I am trying to recall the previous occasion a sitting cabinet minister was charged by the CPS?
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.
As an aside to the German helmets in British roads story, after the First World War, a number of German fighter planes were given to British schools (sans machine guns, one imagines).
Ooh, that's a British (?) Holt Tractor in the video, I think?
Not sure about the planes myself - might be a conflation with the RAF and FAA planes given to British schools' air cadet units after WW2.
But lots of towns and villages were handed out German weapons such as machine guns and artillery field guns after the Great War. And British tanks. (No German tanks to spare as there were so few, presumably. I think the IWM got one, and one went to Oz where it still is.)
Most of the municipal landships went to scrap sooner or later, especially in 1939-40, but a couple survived - one is still at Ashford where it was doing a useful job as the local electricity sub station.
Gallup poll is always nonsense because the poll is conducted among adults, not registered voters or likely voters, an audience among which he does better.
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
I haven't mentioned freebies once
You said that there was a secret rulebook that your CPS friends had told you about that required Slalom to hold a press conference about the prosecution of a cabinet minister
Again wrong, it is a guide for when the CPS should make public statements, and given the circumstances and timeframe it was felt appropriate.
I am trying to recall the previous occasion a sitting cabinet minister was charged by the CPS?
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
I haven't mentioned freebies once
You said that there was a secret rulebook that your CPS friends had told you about that required Slalom to hold a press conference about the prosecution of a cabinet minister
Again wrong, it is a guide for when the CPS should make public statements, and given the circumstances and timeframe it was felt appropriate.
I am trying to recall the previous occasion a sitting cabinet minister was charged by the CPS?
Chris Huhne?
That was the only time and the secret rulebook said so
I've bought two mess tins so I don't have to cook soup in the can
And I'm only taking three or four cans so don't worry about the weight
What's the best soup?
I like to go for chicken.
As an aside; at school I did a long hiking trip whilst my ankle was good. Because we were poor students, we subsisted on pot noodles. Which are very bulky.
The solution was to open the packs, pour them into envelopes, seal them, and write the contents on the envelope.
Which worked well for a few nights, until we had to cross the River Etive. Our packs got soaked, and so did the envelopes. We spent a few days scraping contents out of the envelopes, not knowing what was in 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.
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
So why are they not using mobile phones? And being equivalent to Sein Fein just makes me think terrorist adjacent, like the bad old days.
I've bought two mess tins so I don't have to cook soup in the can
And I'm only taking three or four cans so don't worry about the weight
What's the best soup?
I like to go for chicken.
As an aside; at school I did a long hiking trip whilst my ankle was good. Because we were poor students, we subsisted on pot noodles. Which are very bulky.
The solution was to open the packs, pour them into envelopes, seal them, and write the contents on the envelope.
Which worked well for a few nights, until we had to cross the River Etive. Our packs got soaked, and so did the envelopes. We spent a few days scraping contents out of the envelopes, not knowing what was in them.
Yummmmy. Not...
Friend of mine went on a road trip through the Sahara as a Cambridge U student. They took boxes and boxes of pot noodles. Got fed up with then very soon. But the locals out in the desert wouldn't accept them as gifts, either. Brought most of them home ...
Gallup poll is always nonsense because the poll is conducted among adults, not registered voters or likely voters, an audience among which he does better.
Do we ever see quite such wild divergence in UK polling, though ? That's a 14% difference in Harris's net favourability.
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Hezbollah’s purpose is not to blow people to pieces, although they do often blow people to pieces. They are an active political party in Lebanon who have been involved in several coalition governments. They are also a large, Iranian-backed militia force opposed to Israel. It’s complicated.
It’s not that complicated
Are they a proscribed terrorist organisation?
The answer is yes.
The UK government helpfully provides a lot of detail:
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.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
I started off supporting Liverpool because I was a young child who liked supporting the winners and Liverpool were that for much of eighties
But I loved Dalglish even more than Liverpool, so I supported Blackburn after a couple of years of half-hearted support under Souness
I have a Blackburn shirt signed by the whole squad that won the league
Then when I grew up I decided to support the team from where I'm from
So now I have the Saturday stress of seeing Southampton's scores
It could be worse. When I grew up I lived almost equidistant between Southampton and Swindon. My Dad took me to my first ever game at... Swindon (he'd been a copper there and knew it). How my life could have been different.
I've bought two mess tins so I don't have to cook soup in the can
And I'm only taking three or four cans so don't worry about the weight
What's the best soup?
I like to go for chicken.
As an aside; at school I did a long hiking trip whilst my ankle was good. Because we were poor students, we subsisted on pot noodles. Which are very bulky.
The solution was to open the packs, pour them into envelopes, seal them, and write the contents on the envelope.
Which worked well for a few nights, until we had to cross the River Etive. Our packs got soaked, and so did the envelopes. We spent a few days scraping contents out of the envelopes, not knowing what was in them.
Yummmmy. Not...
- Sealable plastic bags - Staedler pens to write on the plastic bags
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.
Funny old world.
And there is a decent argument that she *should* have an allowance.
She’s not an employee or in a public role, but will incur additional costs when acting in her capacity as the PMs wife. It’s reasonable that the state should pay
Good post. There is certainly a case for that, but in the absence of such an allowance it seems reasonable that the Labour Party should pay, which in effect it did – it's just that one of its biggest donors ringfenced the funding for her wardrobe rather than chucked it into general party coffers (which could then be pissed up the wall at various party events).
“In effect it did” doesn’t cover it.
Your boy did wrong.
He shouldn’t have taken the clothes or the tickets. Caesar’s wife and all that.
His only 'wrongdoing' was declaring the frocks late, although he did declare them once he realised he should do so, and he did this before any media interest.
So yes, there was technically wrongdoing, but it is pretty small beer.
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
I haven't mentioned freebies once
You said that there was a secret rulebook that your CPS friends had told you about that required Slalom to hold a press conference about the prosecution of a cabinet minister
Again wrong, it is a guide for when the CPS should make public statements, and given the circumstances and timeframe it was felt appropriate.
I am trying to recall the previous occasion a sitting cabinet minister was charged by the CPS?
The police did multiple announcements when assessing and setting fines over Partygate.
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Hezbollah’s purpose is not to blow people to pieces, although they do often blow people to pieces. They are an active political party in Lebanon who have been involved in several coalition governments. They are also a large, Iranian-backed militia force opposed to Israel. It’s complicated.
It’s not that complicated
Are they a proscribed terrorist organisation?
The answer is yes.
The UK government helpfully provides a lot of detail:
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
I haven't mentioned freebies once
You said that there was a secret rulebook that your CPS friends had told you about that required Slalom to hold a press conference about the prosecution of a cabinet minister
Again wrong, it is a guide for when the CPS should make public statements, and given the circumstances and timeframe it was felt appropriate.
I am trying to recall the previous occasion a sitting cabinet minister was charged by the CPS?
Chris Huhne?
I meant before Chris Huhne.
Castlereagh committed a serious offence. No charges though.
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.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
Good for you.
How would your employer feel of one of their clients had paid for you to go for free?
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.
That's all fine of course. The point being that Starmer needs to pay for his ticket - that element of the hospitality pass. Not the whole palaver, which is a matter for the tax payer and Arsenal. of course this is a tedious detail. You would have thought that after Boris, Blair, Beergate and so on, PMs would know that every tedious detail matters, and that we want PMs who are exemplary in their public facing lives WRT integrity and ordinary honest and honourable conduct.
Down memory lane and Highbury in about 1970 and standing in the North Bank ('Harry Roberts is our friend, he shoots coppers' and other cheery chants) for under a quid.
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
So why are they not using mobile phones? And being equivalent to Sein Fein just makes me think terrorist adjacent, like the bad old days.
They are terrorists. They are not just terrorists.
Gallup poll is always nonsense because the poll is conducted among adults, not registered voters or likely voters, an audience among which he does better.
Do we ever see quite such wild divergence in UK polling, though ? That's a 14% difference in Harris's net favourability.
Excluding Matt Goodwin's mob, we don't generally other than question variance.
OGH said he preferred questions which asked satisfaction/dissatisfaction over approval/disapproval questions.
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
So why are they not using mobile phones? And being equivalent to Sein Fein just makes me think terrorist adjacent, like the bad old days.
Because they run a militia - actually a fair sized army. Which is currently attacking Israel with rockets. In a daily bombardment. Which they proudly announced to the world, and continue to proudly announce.
The reason they are not using mobile phones is that people on the Enemies of Israel list who use mobile phones find all kinds of problems. Such as dying.
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.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I was attempting to use an easy to understand metaphor on a BETTING site, but my point seems to have gone utterly over your head, so let me explain again.
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
Oh, heavens to Betsy. I said I was picking at your example. I got your point. I also responded to your point. The part of my response that you skipped over is the comparison to other forms of income.
If I go earn some extra money, I pay 40% of it in income tax. If you’re rich and able to invest £250k (something most people in the country can’t even dream of) and you make money from that investment, should you pay no tax on that, should you pay the same as income tax, less, more? If you want to make your argument about CGT, I suggest you need to do it in the context of the tax rates on earned income.
Or, as I explained in my previous post, capital is globally mobile, and those with 250k (or much more) to invest, will simply up sticks and leave the UK.
There is a reason why tax on profit from investment (i.e. risk) is generally taxed much lower than income in every country across the world. You want people to risk their capital.
Having 250k to invest also means you have 250k to lose. At 45%, people will risk their capital less (thus harming the economy) or take their money out of the economy entirely (causing even more harm).
To repeat myself, again, it would be an unalloyed act of economic madness from Labour to do it. Not least because HMRC have already estimated it to be significantly net negative to the treasury. So if they do go down that path, it's political posturing of the very worst kind, the kind that actively harms the economy, all in the name of 'bashing the rich' (who will bugger off, anyway).
Thank you for a more considered reply.
Three points: (1) the idea that people "will simply up sticks and leave the UK" is repeated whenever Labour is in power. The risk is greatly exaggerated.
(2) As I said, the tax system should encourage people to invest in businesses. Plenty of capital gains, however, is not investment. How do we best distinguish which is which?
(3) Yours is another in a recent glut of posts that claim it would be "madness" for Labour to do something that they haven't announced they're going to do.
To your points, at 45% I will personally either defer any sale until CGT falls again, or leave. I personally know two people who have already left, due to the reduction in entrepreneur's relief.
I agree with you that the tax system needs to differentiate between types of investment. And it already does. Which is why there's a higher rate for property CGT than there is for other investments like shares, plus (limited) entrepreneur's relief and other reliefs that further encourage the 'right' kind of investment. I expect these to continue being progressively taken away.
Thirdly, unlike some of the posters on here posting links to the Telegraph or Mail (which are primarily focused on Evil Labour after your BTL gains), this is very much my world, as I consult for a number of startups who are worried, and as I say, I've already turned down an investment opportunity myself on the basis of what Labour *might* do to affect the risk/reward balance in October. So their refusal to deny the 45% rate is already having a real world impact on investment.
The FT (a paper that backed Labour at the GE) is littered with concerned articles about the potential impact on growth, investment and entrepreneurship, for example -
The fact that people are already running for the hills over what might be is already causing harm to the economy.
It's frustrating because, as I say, it flies in the face of basic economics. So it will be interesting to see if it actually happens. I rate the chances of equalisation with income tax at 50/50 or more. When really they should be 0, because the latest government modelling shows that 25%ish or 29%ish on property is about as high as you can go before revenue becomes net negative. So if Labour do go ahead with it, we'll know it's a bash the rich policy that actually harms the economy - lower growth, fewer jobs, a smaller tax base as rich people emigrate and young, smart people leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
So why are they not using mobile phones? And being equivalent to Sein Fein just makes me think terrorist adjacent, like the bad old days.
They are terrorists. They are not just terrorists.
I've bought two mess tins so I don't have to cook soup in the can
And I'm only taking three or four cans so don't worry about the weight
What's the best soup?
I like to go for chicken.
As an aside; at school I did a long hiking trip whilst my ankle was good. Because we were poor students, we subsisted on pot noodles. Which are very bulky.
The solution was to open the packs, pour them into envelopes, seal them, and write the contents on the envelope.
Which worked well for a few nights, until we had to cross the River Etive. Our packs got soaked, and so did the envelopes. We spent a few days scraping contents out of the envelopes, not knowing what was in them.
Yummmmy. Not...
- Sealable plastic bags - Staedler pens to write on the plastic bags
This was 1990, and we were teenagers. We were lucky to get the envelopes...
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.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I was attempting to use an easy to understand metaphor on a BETTING site, but my point seems to have gone utterly over your head, so let me explain again.
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
Oh, heavens to Betsy. I said I was picking at your example. I got your point. I also responded to your point. The part of my response that you skipped over is the comparison to other forms of income.
If I go earn some extra money, I pay 40% of it in income tax. If you’re rich and able to invest £250k (something most people in the country can’t even dream of) and you make money from that investment, should you pay no tax on that, should you pay the same as income tax, less, more? If you want to make your argument about CGT, I suggest you need to do it in the context of the tax rates on earned income.
Or, as I explained in my previous post, capital is globally mobile, and those with 250k (or much more) to invest, will simply up sticks and leave the UK.
There is a reason why tax on profit from investment (i.e. risk) is generally taxed much lower than income in every country across the world. You want people to risk their capital.
Having 250k to invest also means you have 250k to lose. At 45%, people will risk their capital less (thus harming the economy) or take their money out of the economy entirely (causing even more harm).
To repeat myself, again, it would be an unalloyed act of economic madness from Labour to do it. Not least because HMRC have already estimated it to be significantly net negative to the treasury. So if they do go down that path, it's political posturing of the very worst kind, the kind that actively harms the economy, all in the name of 'bashing the rich' (who will bugger off, anyway).
Thank you for a more considered reply.
Three points: (1) the idea that people "will simply up sticks and leave the UK" is repeated whenever Labour is in power. The risk is greatly exaggerated.
(2) As I said, the tax system should encourage people to invest in businesses. Plenty of capital gains, however, is not investment. How do we best distinguish which is which?
(3) Yours is another in a recent glut of posts that claim it would be "madness" for Labour to do something that they haven't announced they're going to do.
To your points, at 45% I will personally either defer any sale until CGT falls again, or leave. I personally know two people who have already left, due to the reduction in entrepreneur's relief.
I agree with you that the tax system needs to differentiate between types of investment. And it already does. Which is why there's a higher rate for property CGT than there is for other investments like shares, plus (limited) entrepreneur's relief and other reliefs that further encourage the 'right' kind of investment. I expect these to continue being progressively taken away.
Thirdly, unlike some of the posters on here posting links to the Telegraph or Mail (which are primarily focused on Evil Labour after your BTL gains), this is very much my world, as I consult for a number of startups who are worried, and as I say, I've already turned down an investment opportunity myself on the basis of what Labour *might* do to affect the risk/reward balance in October. So their refusal to deny the 45% rate is already having a real world impact on investment.
The FT (a paper that backed Labour at the GE) is littered with concerned articles about the potential impact on growth, investment and entrepreneurship, for example -
The fact that people are already running for the hills over what might be is already causing harm to the economy.
It's frustrating because, as I say, it flies in the face of basic economics. So it will be interesting to see if it actually happens. I rate the chances of equalisation with income tax at 50/50 or more. When really they should be 0, because the latest government modelling shows that 25%ish or 29%ish on property is about as high as you can go before revenue becomes net negative. So if Labour do go ahead with it, we'll know it's a bash the rich policy that actually harms the economy - lower growth, fewer jobs, a smaller tax base as rich people emigrate and young, smart people leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
Of course the FT is littered with concerned articles. That's what interested parties do before a budget. They try and influence government policy. They, among other things, write concerned articles about why their thing should be taxed less or supported more.
I am very confident that the new Labour govt will not do most of the things that people have written concerned articles about. But I think we should raise tax somewhere, somehow.
"Could your smartphone be next? Experts reveal if mobiles could also be targeted - as Israeli spies co-ordinate devastating pager explosion attack on Hezbollah"
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
Oh and if we're talking about ignorance about Hezbollah here's a handy guide.
"Nasrallah has also repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel. “It is an aggressive, illegal and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land,” he said in 2005. “It’s destination is manifested in our motto, ‘Death to Israel’.” Hezbollah has also and angrily threatened to destroy U.S. “hegemony” in the Middle East."
Lovely fellas won't hear a word against them.
I think now would not be a wise time to talk about loose talk from any Hezzbollah official or we might have to hear the thoughts of some of the serious crackpots currently holding senior ministerial positions in todays Israeli Cabinet.
"Could your smartphone be next? Experts reveal if mobiles could also be targeted - as Israeli spies co-ordinate devastating pager explosion attack on Hezbollah"
Someone embezzled a lot of construction funds, if a few homebuilt Ukrainian drones did this...
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion.".. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang. Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
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.
Mandy Rice Davies springs to mind
A typically weak response from you.
Which part of my post is wrong?
I think Starmer's tickets come from the FA - certainly his Taylor Swift tickets come from one of the football bodies. These are organisations upon which Starmer’s decisions could have a negative or positive impact.
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.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
I started off supporting Liverpool because I was a young child who liked supporting the winners and Liverpool were that for much of eighties
But I loved Dalglish even more than Liverpool, so I supported Blackburn after a couple of years of half-hearted support under Souness
I have a Blackburn shirt signed by the whole squad that won the league
Then when I grew up I decided to support the team from where I'm from
So now I have the Saturday stress of seeing Southampton's scores
I don't see why fans shouldn't change clubs. Players seem to have no qualms whatsoever about doing so (aside from Steve Bull and Matt Le Tissier). One way loyalty is a mug's game.
Someone embezzled a lot of construction funds, if a few homebuilt Ukrainian drones did this...
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion.".. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang. Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
The RAF Fauld explosion in 1944 was one of the largest manmade non-nuclear explosions in history. 4,000 tonnes of ammunition went up.
During the clear-up, lots of unexploded ammunition in the collapsed tunnels was dug out.
And used.
When I was a kid, there were rumours that there was still many tonnes of bombs underground that were too unsafe to get out.
Someone embezzled a lot of construction funds, if a few homebuilt Ukrainian drones did this...
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion.".. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang. Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
The RAF Fauld explosion in 1944 was one of the largest manmade non-nuclear explosions in history. 4,000 tonnes of ammunition went up.
During the clear-up, lots of unexploded ammunition in the collapsed tunnels was dug out.
And used.
When I was a kid, there were rumours that there was still many tonnes of bombs underground that were too unsafe to get out.
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?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
Oh and if we're talking about ignorance about Hezbollah here's a handy guide.
"Nasrallah has also repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel. “It is an aggressive, illegal and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land,” he said in 2005. “It’s destination is manifested in our motto, ‘Death to Israel’.” Hezbollah has also and angrily threatened to destroy U.S. “hegemony” in the Middle East."
Lovely fellas won't hear a word against them.
I think now would not be a wise time to talk about loose talk from any Hezzbollah official or we might have to hear the thoughts of some of the serious crackpots currently holding senior ministerial positions in todays Israeli Cabinet.
I'm curious - what was your opinion of the social programs run by the AUC in Columbia, in their heyday? Or the ARENA party in El Salvador?
Sunak in a way wrong footed this lot by putting them in to bat at the beginning of the silly season, but it's their own unforced error which has doubled the length of the s.s. with the October 30 (only six more weeks, guys!) budget. As their stated mission is to Fill The Hole there can't be any policy discussion till November and the resulting vacuum cannot be filled with bossy edicts about smoking in parks and acts of petty cruelty to the elderly. That is why we are here desperately discussing lady S's clothes.
Six more weeks.
It's not the first hundred days most governments aim for.
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.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I was attempting to use an easy to understand metaphor on a BETTING site, but my point seems to have gone utterly over your head, so let me explain again.
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
Oh, heavens to Betsy. I said I was picking at your example. I got your point. I also responded to your point. The part of my response that you skipped over is the comparison to other forms of income.
If I go earn some extra money, I pay 40% of it in income tax. If you’re rich and able to invest £250k (something most people in the country can’t even dream of) and you make money from that investment, should you pay no tax on that, should you pay the same as income tax, less, more? If you want to make your argument about CGT, I suggest you need to do it in the context of the tax rates on earned income.
Or, as I explained in my previous post, capital is globally mobile, and those with 250k (or much more) to invest, will simply up sticks and leave the UK.
There is a reason why tax on profit from investment (i.e. risk) is generally taxed much lower than income in every country across the world. You want people to risk their capital.
Having 250k to invest also means you have 250k to lose. At 45%, people will risk their capital less (thus harming the economy) or take their money out of the economy entirely (causing even more harm).
To repeat myself, again, it would be an unalloyed act of economic madness from Labour to do it. Not least because HMRC have already estimated it to be significantly net negative to the treasury. So if they do go down that path, it's political posturing of the very worst kind, the kind that actively harms the economy, all in the name of 'bashing the rich' (who will bugger off, anyway).
Thank you for a more considered reply.
Three points: (1) the idea that people "will simply up sticks and leave the UK" is repeated whenever Labour is in power. The risk is greatly exaggerated.
(2) As I said, the tax system should encourage people to invest in businesses. Plenty of capital gains, however, is not investment. How do we best distinguish which is which?
(3) Yours is another in a recent glut of posts that claim it would be "madness" for Labour to do something that they haven't announced they're going to do.
To your points, at 45% I will personally either defer any sale until CGT falls again, or leave. I personally know two people who have already left, due to the reduction in entrepreneur's relief.
I agree with you that the tax system needs to differentiate between types of investment. And it already does. Which is why there's a higher rate for property CGT than there is for other investments like shares, plus (limited) entrepreneur's relief and other reliefs that further encourage the 'right' kind of investment. I expect these to continue being progressively taken away.
Thirdly, unlike some of the posters on here posting links to the Telegraph or Mail (which are primarily focused on Evil Labour after your BTL gains), this is very much my world, as I consult for a number of startups who are worried, and as I say, I've already turned down an investment opportunity myself on the basis of what Labour *might* do to affect the risk/reward balance in October. So their refusal to deny the 45% rate is already having a real world impact on investment.
The FT (a paper that backed Labour at the GE) is littered with concerned articles about the potential impact on growth, investment and entrepreneurship, for example -
The fact that people are already running for the hills over what might be is already causing harm to the economy.
It's frustrating because, as I say, it flies in the face of basic economics. So it will be interesting to see if it actually happens. I rate the chances of equalisation with income tax at 50/50 or more. When really they should be 0, because the latest government modelling shows that 25%ish or 29%ish on property is about as high as you can go before revenue becomes net negative. So if Labour do go ahead with it, we'll know it's a bash the rich policy that actually harms the economy - lower growth, fewer jobs, a smaller tax base as rich people emigrate and young, smart people leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
Of course the FT is littered with concerned articles. That's what interested parties do before a budget. They try and influence government policy. They, among other things, write concerned articles about why their thing should be taxed less or supported more.
I am very confident that the new Labour govt will not do most of the things that people have written concerned articles about. But I think we should raise tax somewhere, somehow.
True - the hope is that Reeves is rattling the sabre to encourage sales now to increase tax take this year.
I also don't think it's unreasonable to tax disguised income (carried interest) as income rather than a capital gain. Though the private equity types are saying that too will reduce economic activity. I'm less certain of that. But it's harder to justify if no risk is involved.
If I were chancellor, I'd put CGT on property back up to 28% where it was a couple of years ago, or even consider 30%. It's an unproductive part of the economy and also you can't leave the country to avoid paying it, so less risk of capital flight or brain drains (many brains working in startups and tech being paid in equity - few brains in the property development world).
I would either leave the main rate of CGT where it is now, or risk bringing it up to 25% (though without indexation this is often effectively a 25% tax on inflation, reintroducing indexation would reduce the take substantially, so you're back to square one).
Another option would be to consider a long term and short term rate as the US has, where investments attract less CGT if held for longer than a year. Or you could reintroduce taper relief, which reduces your tax bill the longer you hold an asset.
The point is though, that once you start fiddling with taper reliefs and indexation, you end up generating about what you generate now at 20% without the added complexity.
CGT where it is now, or maybe up to 25% (lower) and 30% (higher rate) is about as high as you can push it before you get capital flight, brain drain, lower growth, less economic activity, fewer jobs, fewer startups etc. And that effects everyone, not just the 'rich' few who actually pay it.
Someone embezzled a lot of construction funds, if a few homebuilt Ukrainian drones did this...
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion.".. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang. Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
The RAF Fauld explosion in 1944 was one of the largest manmade non-nuclear explosions in history. 4,000 tonnes of ammunition went up.
During the clear-up, lots of unexploded ammunition in the collapsed tunnels was dug out.
And used.
When I was a kid, there were rumours that there was still many tonnes of bombs underground that were too unsafe to get out.
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.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
I started off supporting Liverpool because I was a young child who liked supporting the winners and Liverpool were that for much of eighties
But I loved Dalglish even more than Liverpool, so I supported Blackburn after a couple of years of half-hearted support under Souness
I have a Blackburn shirt signed by the whole squad that won the league
Then when I grew up I decided to support the team from where I'm from
So now I have the Saturday stress of seeing Southampton's scores
I don't see why fans shouldn't change clubs. Players seem to have no qualms whatsoever about doing so (aside from Steve Bull and Matt Le Tissier). One way loyalty is a mug's game.
Club loyalty is an odd thing. I have been a Swindon fan since 1985. I have periods of my life in other cities watching other clubs fairly regularly - Coventry and Norwich, for instance. I must have been to see Norwich play well over 20 times. But will I would want then to do well, they never became my club. And it was no contest if they played my beloved Town. If I were to switch I would be giving up 40 years of suffering but also 40 years of some amazing memories. So unless the club vanishes overnight, I am, as they say, "Swindon till I die".
Someone embezzled a lot of construction funds, if a few homebuilt Ukrainian drones did this...
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion.".. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang. Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
The RAF Fauld explosion in 1944 was one of the largest manmade non-nuclear explosions in history. 4,000 tonnes of ammunition went up.
During the clear-up, lots of unexploded ammunition in the collapsed tunnels was dug out.
And used.
When I was a kid, there were rumours that there was still many tonnes of bombs underground that were too unsafe to get out.
Malmesbury's Rules For A Simple Life - 453. Don't let people chisel the fuses out of live weapons. With a sledgehammer.
To be fair, they don't really know what caused the explosion as there wasn't much left of the source. There was (ahem) a certain amount of anti-Italian sentiment at the time in the area, as loads of Italian POWs were working in the mine.
The brass chisel cause is pretty much a random guess. Another was that a bomb fell off one of the narrow-gauge wagons they used in the tunnels.
Someone embezzled a lot of construction funds, if a few homebuilt Ukrainian drones did this...
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion.".. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang. Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
The RAF Fauld explosion in 1944 was one of the largest manmade non-nuclear explosions in history. 4,000 tonnes of ammunition went up.
During the clear-up, lots of unexploded ammunition in the collapsed tunnels was dug out.
And used.
When I was a kid, there were rumours that there was still many tonnes of bombs underground that were too unsafe to get out.
Malmesbury's Rules For A Simple Life - 453. Don't let people chisel the fuses out of live weapons. With a sledgehammer.
On the trip down a Welsh slate mine, they show you the old hat of the guy who forgot to use the brass tamping rod for the powder charge. Two neat circular holes either side.
Someone embezzled a lot of construction funds, if a few homebuilt Ukrainian drones did this...
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion.".. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang. Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
The RAF Fauld explosion in 1944 was one of the largest manmade non-nuclear explosions in history. 4,000 tonnes of ammunition went up.
During the clear-up, lots of unexploded ammunition in the collapsed tunnels was dug out.
And used.
When I was a kid, there were rumours that there was still many tonnes of bombs underground that were too unsafe to get out.
Malmesbury's Rules For A Simple Life - 453. Don't let people chisel the fuses out of live weapons. With a sledgehammer.
To be fair, they don't really know what caused the explosion as there wasn't much left of the source. There was (ahem) a certain amount of anti-Italian sentiment at the time in the area, as loads of Italian POWs were working in the mine.
The brass chisel cause is pretty much a random guess. Another was that a bomb fell off one of the narrow-gauge wagons they used in the tunnels.
People reported other people using non-brass chisels. And using sledgehammers to get them going.....
Someone embezzled a lot of construction funds, if a few homebuilt Ukrainian drones did this...
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion.".. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang. Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
The RAF Fauld explosion in 1944 was one of the largest manmade non-nuclear explosions in history. 4,000 tonnes of ammunition went up.
During the clear-up, lots of unexploded ammunition in the collapsed tunnels was dug out.
And used.
When I was a kid, there were rumours that there was still many tonnes of bombs underground that were too unsafe to get out.
Malmesbury's Rules For A Simple Life - 453. Don't let people chisel the fuses out of live weapons. With a sledgehammer.
To be fair, they don't really know what caused the explosion as there wasn't much left of the source. There was (ahem) a certain amount of anti-Italian sentiment at the time in the area, as loads of Italian POWs were working in the mine.
The brass chisel cause is pretty much a random guess. Another was that a bomb fell off one of the narrow-gauge wagons they used in the tunnels.
It's not as though there was an eye witness account.
Comments
Senior Labour source: “Sue Gray is the only pensioner better off under Labour”
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hezbollah
"Nasrallah has also repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel. “It is an aggressive, illegal and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land,” he said in 2005. “It’s destination is manifested in our motto, ‘Death to Israel’.” Hezbollah has also and angrily threatened to destroy U.S. “hegemony” in the Middle East."
Lovely fellas won't hear a word against them.
But I loved Dalglish even more than Liverpool, so I supported Blackburn after a couple of years of half-hearted support under Souness
I have a Blackburn shirt signed by the whole squad that won the league
Then when I grew up I decided to support the team from where I'm from
So now I have the Saturday stress of seeing Southampton's scores
They are currently waging actual war on Israel - by bombarding Northern Israel on a daily basis with rockets.
Sinn Féin never claimed to be an armed movement - they claimed that they supported the PIRA, but that was a separate origination. How much of that was bullshit is arguable.
I’m sure there are loads of things people liked doing before they became top politicians but they can’t because of safety or probity.
What if he just loved going to Spearmint Rhino every week before he was PM? But it’s his hobby. It’s just juvenile bollocks.
Just because he wants to watch his team whilst wearing his Gunners y-fronts everyone has to accommodate his security at the ground, the increased risk to other fans. It costs the tax payer extra, it puts him at risk of pressure re - for example - the football regulator plans.
He’s grown up to say “well for the next few years I will just give it a miss” and then knock himself out, maybe even get on the board of AFC, after he’s stepped down.
I'd venture that it would be a low proportion.
Six more weeks.
Do Arsenal give all loyal season ticket holders such privilege? No? If so, they're doing it because he's PM. So what do they get in return?
You said that there was a secret rulebook that your CPS friends had told you about that required Slalom to hold a press conference about the prosecution of a cabinet minister
The point though, which many people on here are missing is that the rules don't apply to people outside government. Starmer (and Johnson for that matter) haven't broken the "spirit" of the rules as long as they were outside government.
He told road.cc: “I regularly ride that section of the road and often get close passes. This time, I put in a complaint on the Police Scotland website about the standard of driving and asked for action as I had an especially bad ride involving 10-20 close passes.”
...
Police Scotland responded, saying: “Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We do run Operation Close Pass between April and September, which is designed to educate drivers about the safe passing of cyclists on the road.
“We don’t tend to operate these on open A class roads due to the safety element involved towards the police cyclists. We do however have the A92 as a priority route and have dedicated patrols on it several times a week. The Camera Safety Unit also operate on this road.
https://road.cc/content/news/police-scotland-dont-do-cyclist-close-pass-ops-roads-309031
For the PM it's more tricky. I'm not sure a Welsh & Jefferies suit is going to increase British exports significantly but why not. I don't have a problem with it.
As for freebies such as going to the Emirates I think it doesn't pass the smell test who cares if he is a lifelong Arsenal fan.
Mosh pit at Metallica? Seems made for the TSG - "So Sir, we are basically having a fight with the public? {strokes truncheon}"
I find the argument that we must dress our world leaders in expensive garb a bit odd, really.
That said, as others have mentioned it feels to me like if this this an issue because of pay then they should just get paid more and the gifting culture should be done away with.
Gallup poll: Favorability Ratings (shift from August)
Donald Trump
Favorable: 46% (+5)
Unfavorable: 53% (-2)
Kamala Harris
Favorable: 44% (-3)
Unfavorable: 54% (+5)
——
Among independents
Trump: 44-53 (net: -9)
Harris: 35-60 (-25)
In fairness, Sue Gray has to pay for her own clothes.
Your boy did wrong.
He shouldn’t have taken the clothes or the tickets. Caesar’s wife and all that.
I am trying to recall the previous occasion a sitting cabinet minister was charged by the CPS?
There seems to be little consensus though.
Net Favorable Polling:
Kamala Harris: +4%
Tim Walz: +3%
RFK Jr: +2%
Donald Trump: -6%
J.D Vance: -6%
Cornel West: -11%
Joe Biden: -11%
Jill Stein: -14%
HarrisX / Sept 13, 2024 / n=3018
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1836159795809677821
Capital gains tax free and losses can be offset against income tax
Not sure about the planes myself - might be a conflation with the RAF and FAA planes given to British schools' air cadet units after WW2.
But lots of towns and villages were handed out German weapons such as machine guns and artillery field guns after the Great War. And British tanks. (No German tanks to spare as there were so few, presumably. I think the IWM got one, and one went to Oz where it still is.)
Most of the municipal landships went to scrap sooner or later, especially in 1939-40, but a couple survived - one is still at Ashford where it was doing a useful job as the local electricity sub station.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/43725
And I'm only taking three or four cans so don't worry about the weight
What's the best soup?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/kamala-harris/
September 18th
Harris
unfavourable 46.5
Favourable 46.5
Trump
Unfavourable 52.7
Favourable. 42.9
You pay your money and you take your chance
According to friends of people
As an aside; at school I did a long hiking trip whilst my ankle was good. Because we were poor students, we subsisted on pot noodles. Which are very bulky.
The solution was to open the packs, pour them into envelopes, seal them, and write the contents on the envelope.
Which worked well for a few nights, until we had to cross the River Etive. Our packs got soaked, and so did the envelopes. We spent a few days scraping contents out of the envelopes, not knowing what was in them.
Yummmmy. Not...
Looking through the archives, they had Trump leading on this metric in 2020 which was an outlier compared to other reputable pollsters.
https://www.risogallo.co.uk/
Available at Waitrose. Just add water and boil.
That's a 14% difference in Harris's net favourability.
Are they a proscribed terrorist organisation?
The answer is yes.
The UK government helpfully provides a lot of detail:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version
- Staedler pens to write on the plastic bags
So yes, there was technically wrongdoing, but it is pretty small beer.
*Within reason, of course. You can't have my car, or my wife.
How would your employer feel of one of their clients had paid for you to go for free?
OGH said he preferred questions which asked satisfaction/dissatisfaction over approval/disapproval questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_armed_strength
The reason they are not using mobile phones is that people on the Enemies of Israel list who use mobile phones find all kinds of problems. Such as dying.
I agree with you that the tax system needs to differentiate between types of investment. And it already does. Which is why there's a higher rate for property CGT than there is for other investments like shares, plus (limited) entrepreneur's relief and other reliefs that further encourage the 'right' kind of investment. I expect these to continue being progressively taken away.
Thirdly, unlike some of the posters on here posting links to the Telegraph or Mail (which are primarily focused on Evil Labour after your BTL gains), this is very much my world, as I consult for a number of startups who are worried, and as I say, I've already turned down an investment opportunity myself on the basis of what Labour *might* do to affect the risk/reward balance in October. So their refusal to deny the 45% rate is already having a real world impact on investment.
The FT (a paper that backed Labour at the GE) is littered with concerned articles about the potential impact on growth, investment and entrepreneurship, for example -
https://www.ft.com/content/9bd34b5e-6230-47a7-8706-b6c3bc97fac0
https://www.ft.com/content/34d72fa2-d3b8-439a-886f-f4968c82762a
https://www.ft.com/content/3328e614-661b-4b78-8841-9b56cc372a9b
The fact that people are already running for the hills over what might be is already causing harm to the economy.
It's frustrating because, as I say, it flies in the face of basic economics. So it will be interesting to see if it actually happens. I rate the chances of equalisation with income tax at 50/50 or more. When really they should be 0, because the latest government modelling shows that 25%ish or 29%ish on property is about as high as you can go before revenue becomes net negative. So if Labour do go ahead with it, we'll know it's a bash the rich policy that actually harms the economy - lower growth, fewer jobs, a smaller tax base as rich people emigrate and young, smart people leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
Polymarket alone closing in on $1bn
Political betting going mainstream
Thank you very much, hopefully I won't need help but your offer is sincerely appreciated
I am very confident that the new Labour govt will not do most of the things that people have written concerned articles about. But I think we should raise tax somewhere, somehow.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13863441/pager-bomb-attack-Hezbollah-mobile-phones.html
...4/ When the facility was opened in 2018, Bulgakov hailed it as providing "reliable and safe storage, protects against air and missile strikes and even against the damaging effects of a nuclear explosion."..
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1836321009881743813
The overnight explosions were enormous, and went on well into the morning, so quite a lot of the arsenal went bang.
Apparently puts paid to any prospect of invading the Baltic states for a year or so.
During the clear-up, lots of unexploded ammunition in the collapsed tunnels was dug out.
And used.
When I was a kid, there were rumours that there was still many tonnes of bombs underground that were too unsafe to get out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fauld_explosion
This was 5 km2
And it's all burning.
https://x.com/Tendar/status/1836273801551650816
Look at the shockwave.
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1836236639896760771
I also don't think it's unreasonable to tax disguised income (carried interest) as income rather than a capital gain. Though the private equity types are saying that too will reduce economic activity. I'm less certain of that. But it's harder to justify if no risk is involved.
If I were chancellor, I'd put CGT on property back up to 28% where it was a couple of years ago, or even consider 30%. It's an unproductive part of the economy and also you can't leave the country to avoid paying it, so less risk of capital flight or brain drains (many brains working in startups and tech being paid in equity - few brains in the property development world).
I would either leave the main rate of CGT where it is now, or risk bringing it up to 25% (though without indexation this is often effectively a 25% tax on inflation, reintroducing indexation would reduce the take substantially, so you're back to square one).
Another option would be to consider a long term and short term rate as the US has, where investments attract less CGT if held for longer than a year. Or you could reintroduce taper relief, which reduces your tax bill the longer you hold an asset.
The point is though, that once you start fiddling with taper reliefs and indexation, you end up generating about what you generate now at 20% without the added complexity.
CGT where it is now, or maybe up to 25% (lower) and 30% (higher rate) is about as high as you can push it before you get capital flight, brain drain, lower growth, less economic activity, fewer jobs, fewer startups etc. And that effects everyone, not just the 'rich' few who actually pay it.
Malmesbury's Rules For A Simple Life - 453. Don't let people chisel the fuses out of live weapons. With a sledgehammer.
The brass chisel cause is pretty much a random guess. Another was that a bomb fell off one of the narrow-gauge wagons they used in the tunnels.
Two neat circular holes either side.