This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
Yes, that will be how the notional value is estimated for the declaration but there is no actual cost. Money has not changed hands. This is so trivial it would not surprise me if the actual scandal is who paid the daily Uber fares for the boy.
Just because it is notional, doesn't change the value.
FWIW, at dinner last night my group of friends (degree educated, late 20s/early 30s) spontaneously expressed disquiet about this Labour government.
Given the demographic, there was actually some support for the changes to WFP eligibility. And genuine admiration for way the far-right violence was crushed. No one mentioned the freebies stuff - this is definitely a PB/Telegraph bubble thing, particularly given the rank hypocrisy of the Tories making a fuss about it.
It was the lack of progress on anything else (waves vaguely) that has pissed people off.
I think that one of Starmers mistakes was to create a vacuum in which WFA and freebies dominated. First impressions last.
Some real progress on the things that matter to voters is needed in order to change the narrative. Not easy when my local health economy is forecasting a £120 million overspend across all Trusts and commissioners. This would extrapolate to about £6 billion nationally.
Spending political capital like that, to no purpose, suggests the lack of an overall plan.
Which is what New Labour definitely had.
I can’t see why they didn’t tell the OBR to work double shifts and get the budget out earlier. If, indeed, that is the blocker.
I don't know if Sunak meant for this to happen, but a July election really has buggered Labour.
Indeed. Sir Keir is having to console himself with a majority of 174, worse luck! You have to hand it to strategic genius Sunak!
We should all watch very carefully to see what this government does in Lord Alli's interests over the coming months and years.
He will an expectation of something, of that you can be sure.
Something that cannot be bought from Harrods? Imo Lord Alli wants to be in with the in-crowd, as the song has it; close to power; confidante of those running the country. I doubt there is any more to it than that. The unstated deal is he gives them nice things and they talk to him. I doubt he is angling for a government contract, specific legislation, or even a place on an advisory committee. Probably it is just a social thing and should be seen in that light.
Jeffrey Archer without the political edge, perhaps.
He was recruited by his neighbour Emily Thornberry and made a Life Peer in 1998, sitting on the Labour benches. He is an activist for gay and LBGT rights, which is where he just might hope to influence legislation.
Glad to see I get substantially more from ALCS than Starmer does
#academicsnoutsinthetrough
I didn't know about PLR / ALCS for about five years after my first book was out. Got almost £500 in the first year in accumulated backpay. Well worth the admin.
There was one year that I got £5k*. I'd been signed up a for a few years and never got close to that before or since - occasionally clear £1k, but mostly £500-£1000 - so I don't know what was going on there. I can't work out whether it's notionally a flat fee based on averages or there's actually some tracking of e.g. downloads of papers etc.
*happily towards the end of PhD, so I didn't have any other notable taxable income as the stipend wasn't taxable, just a bit of teaching work, so got to keep it all
I can add papers? Didn't know that.
If published in UK journals (can be hard to tell, I just pop in the ISSNs - sometimes the print one will work and online doesn't or vice versa - some that I think of as UK are rejected). I think the bigger money has been from the books though, but it's hard to tell.
So, how do I put in journal papers to the PLR system?
Labour will be very happy with that poll. Doing unpopular (necessary) things, telling the truth about the state of the public finances and the difficult road ahead. Frockgate/Currygate/Donkeygate doesn't seem to have many any difference to VI.
Funny old world.
The poll has been deconstructed. And it’s deceptive
The noted movements are from the GE results. The ACTUAL movements from Techne’s last poll - just before the GE - show Labour down SEVEN
Everything is just noise until the budget next month, really.
Few will shed a tear if CGT is raised from 20% to 45%, but potential stuff we've heard like the end of the single person's council tax discount, going for people's pensions or reducing the isa allowance, or the end of the 'uplift' at death turning into a substantial stealth inheritance tax rise - will go down like a cup of cold sick.
If Labour wasn't too get a handle on the public finances the winter fuel allowance is only going to be the start of it. One of the big tests will be not cancelling the planned fuel duty increase.
People are used to paying 140ish for petrol so if we are going to do it now is a sensible time.
I paid £1.36 at yesterday at Asda for E10 petrol
That's expensive - round here it's £1.32, head to Bishop Auckland and it's £1.29..
Paid £1.279 earlier today.
My wife paid that too in South Tyneside last week.
The new garage where the dodgy carwash was on the A184 is remarkably cheap
Don't know that one, but the one she went to is on the A194 just down from from the A19 roundabout. It has just recently been rebuilt.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
I have had a Tax Code change - Personal allowance £12,570 State Pension £14,119. I have other pensions that they can take the tax off before I get it it but a fair few pensioners will be getting tax demands from HMRC soon asking for a payment. Would be very sensible, if only to reduce the paperwork, to give pensioners an increased personal allowance of perhaps £1,250 - by coincidence worth £250 at the standard rate of income tax.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
I can see why that is the value that has to be declared but it is not the real value of the gift. A student revising on their own (maybe with a tutor or family) simply can't make £20k use of it.
Those dates align perfectly with Sunak calling the election and the end of the election.
What I don't get is, during the campaign, Starmer can't have been at home much. In which case, why the need to move his son out?
Security.
I know for a fact that politicians and their families live under threats that have escalated a lot since last October.
There’s a few groups who think Starmer is a paedophile enabler/Brexit stopper and will try and be violent.
I can easily believe that. But firstly, it's the same for all MPs, especially prominent ones. Secondly, it's not the excuse he used. Thirdly, it seems from the dates that the excuse he used was b/s.
£20,000 may not be a massive amount of money to you, but it is to much of the great British public. It is not a trivial sum to be bunged.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Oh do shut up you pitiful fanny of a man. Now you’re whining - literally - because of all the nasty names
Speaking of which I see Sir Sheer Wanker has now accepted £20,000 in folding money so “his son has a quiet room to study in”
1. A quiet room to study in does not cost £20,000 for a few weeks
2. Starmer is a multimillionaire. This is nuts. Why can’t he pay for this stuff himself? This is pure grift
“I’m important so I should get lots of free stuff”
Are PB lefties seriously flouncing because they “don’t like all this criticism of the government”?
AHAHAHAHAHAH
says the King of the 3 day flounce.
I flounce for multiple woundrous and wanky reasons. I don’t ever flounce like a girl because I “can’t take all this criticism of the government”
Frankly you score about 4.2 on most of your flounces. Don't hit the diving board with your head on the next one. Maybe don't try and do a quadruple somersault until you have the basics right?
I have had a Tax Code change - Personal allowance £12,570 State Pension £14,119. I have other pensions that they can take the tax off before I get it it but a fair few pensioners will be getting tax demands from HMRC soon asking for a payment. Would be very sensible, if only to reduce the paperwork, to give pensioners an increased personal allowance of perhaps £1,250 - by coincidence worth £250 at the standard rate of income tax.
For everyone or not at all. The days of pensioners being the client vote that get all the cherries have gone. Live with it. FWIW I prefer raising it for everyone.
I have had a Tax Code change - Personal allowance £12,570 State Pension £14,119. I have other pensions that they can take the tax off before I get it it but a fair few pensioners will be getting tax demands from HMRC soon asking for a payment. Would be very sensible, if only to reduce the paperwork, to give pensioners an increased personal allowance of perhaps £1,250 - by coincidence worth £250 at the standard rate of income tax.
You can claim that if your wife/husband/civil partner is earning below the tax threshold
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
Even that poll has a 2% swing from Labour to Reform since the general election
That's MoE stuff... but what would a 2% swing from Labour to Reform mean? That might be good for the Tories in some Lab/Con marginals, but it might be bad for them in seats where RefUK are second.
It would see Reform gain Llanelli from Labour but Labour gain 11 seats from the Tories given the Tories are also down 3%. So the next Tory leader does need to squeeze that Reform vote, especially in Labour v Tory marginals
I have had a Tax Code change - Personal allowance £12,570 State Pension £14,119. I have other pensions that they can take the tax off before I get it it but a fair few pensioners will be getting tax demands from HMRC soon asking for a payment. Would be very sensible, if only to reduce the paperwork, to give pensioners an increased personal allowance of perhaps £1,250 - by coincidence worth £250 at the standard rate of income tax.
If my tax is slightly out one year I just check a box and my take home pay is adjusted to recoup or give back via PAYE over the following year. Couldn't this just be applied so the take home of the state pension is adjusted similarly for tax changes ?
Those dates align perfectly with Sunak calling the election and the end of the election.
What I don't get is, during the campaign, Starmer can't have been at home much. In which case, why the need to move his son out?
Security.
I know for a fact that politicians and their families live under threats that have escalated a lot since last October.
There’s a few groups who think Starmer is a paedophile enabler/Brexit stopper and will try and be violent.
I can easily believe that. But firstly, it's the same for all MPs, especially prominent ones. Secondly, it's not the excuse he used. Thirdly, it seems from the dates that the excuse he used was b/s.
£20,000 may not be a massive amount of money to you, but it is to much of the great British public. It is not a trivial sum to be bunged.
It’s a young nurse’s annual salary
This stinks. Starmer is a very wealthy man yet he cannot stop grasping for more, and for increasingly ludicrous “reasons”
Labour will be very happy with that poll. Doing unpopular (necessary) things, telling the truth about the state of the public finances and the difficult road ahead. Frockgate/Currygate/Donkeygate doesn't seem to have many any difference to VI.
Funny old world.
The poll has been deconstructed. And it’s deceptive
The noted movements are from the GE results. The ACTUAL movements from Techne’s last poll - just before the GE - show Labour down SEVEN
Everything is just noise until the budget next month, really.
Few will shed a tear if CGT is raised from 20% to 45%, but potential stuff we've heard like the end of the single person's council tax discount, going for people's pensions or reducing the isa allowance, or the end of the 'uplift' at death turning into a substantial stealth inheritance tax rise - will go down like a cup of cold sick.
For me, the real kick in the teeth would be if the tax-free cash allowed to be taken out of pensions/ISAs is significantly less than the IHT threshold. That would mean taxing money you have earned by your own effort/saving more than money you haven't.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
It reminds me of 'he that is without sin first cast the stone'
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
Yes, on reflection, that was pretty cruel.......
To all the lettuces out there, I apologise sincerely.
If Labour want to get a handle on the public finances the winter fuel allowance is only going to be the start of it. One of the big tests will be not cancelling the planned fuel duty increase.
Agreed. They should definitely retain that. And there's probably more they can do across the piece too...
I think we should have a new PB Rule that no one is ever allowed to criticise Labour governments and no one is ever allowed to make up rude names about Labour politicians. Otherwise we might lose all the PB lefties as they go back to kindergarten for a lie down and a nice biscuit
Labour will be very happy with that poll. Doing unpopular (necessary) things, telling the truth about the state of the public finances and the difficult road ahead. Frockgate/Currygate/Donkeygate doesn't seem to have many any difference to VI.
Funny old world.
The poll has been deconstructed. And it’s deceptive
The noted movements are from the GE results. The ACTUAL movements from Techne’s last poll - just before the GE - show Labour down SEVEN
Everything is just noise until the budget next month, really.
Few will shed a tear if CGT is raised from 20% to 45%, but potential stuff we've heard like the end of the single person's council tax discount, going for people's pensions or reducing the isa allowance, or the end of the 'uplift' at death turning into a substantial stealth inheritance tax rise - will go down like a cup of cold sick.
Raising CGT to 45% would be the single most economically damaging policy since Brown’s 1997 pensions raid.
As with that policy 27 years ago, it wouldn’t massively upset most people at the time, and a few Labour supporters would be over the moon to stick it to the rich, but it would quietly play out over the medium term as investment vanishes from the UK economy.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
I can see why that is the value that has to be declared but it is not the real value of the gift. A student revising on their own (maybe with a tutor or family) simply can't make £20k use of it.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I have had a Tax Code change - Personal allowance £12,570 State Pension £14,119. I have other pensions that they can take the tax off before I get it it but a fair few pensioners will be getting tax demands from HMRC soon asking for a payment. Would be very sensible, if only to reduce the paperwork, to give pensioners an increased personal allowance of perhaps £1,250 - by coincidence worth £250 at the standard rate of income tax.
No, pensioners need to be reminded that the state pension is much higher than it used to be.
Those dates align perfectly with Sunak calling the election and the end of the election.
What I don't get is, during the campaign, Starmer can't have been at home much. In which case, why the need to move his son out?
Security.
I know for a fact that politicians and their families live under threats that have escalated a lot since last October.
There’s a few groups who think Starmer is a paedophile enabler/Brexit stopper and will try and be violent.
I can easily believe that. But firstly, it's the same for all MPs, especially prominent ones. Secondly, it's not the excuse he used. Thirdly, it seems from the dates that the excuse he used was b/s.
£20,000 may not be a massive amount of money to you, but it is to much of the great British public. It is not a trivial sum to be bunged.
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
"I have taken representations from the OECD, and I have heard those representations. That is why today, Mr Speaker, I am changing the fiscal rules to usher in a new era of British investment"
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
I can see why that is the value that has to be declared but it is not the real value of the gift. A student revising on their own (maybe with a tutor or family) simply can't make £20k use of it.
And wouldn't pay that. Storm in a teacup.
I would like to see that argument used when paying tax, or gift regulations with an employer - "I have use of benefit in kind of value X. But I didn't really make use of it s. So it is worth much less."
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Labour will be very happy with that poll. Doing unpopular (necessary) things, telling the truth about the state of the public finances and the difficult road ahead. Frockgate/Currygate/Donkeygate doesn't seem to have many any difference to VI.
Funny old world.
The poll has been deconstructed. And it’s deceptive
The noted movements are from the GE results. The ACTUAL movements from Techne’s last poll - just before the GE - show Labour down SEVEN
Everything is just noise until the budget next month, really.
Few will shed a tear if CGT is raised from 20% to 45%, but potential stuff we've heard like the end of the single person's council tax discount, going for people's pensions or reducing the isa allowance, or the end of the 'uplift' at death turning into a substantial stealth inheritance tax rise - will go down like a cup of cold sick.
Raising CGT to 45% would be the single most economically damaging policy since Brown’s 1997 pensions raid.
As with that policy 27 years ago, it wouldn’t massively upset most people at the time, and a few Labour supporters would be over the moon to stick it to the rich, but it would quietly play out over the medium term as investment vanishes from the UK economy.
Zero chance they raise CGT to 45% but they will increase.
Maybe basic taxpayer current rates of 10/18 become 15/20 and Higher 20/24 becomes 25/30. They may also move the annual exempt amount up as £3k is too low imo.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
I have had nothing but compliments for TRUSS – and my defence of Sunak about his height (I mean what a moronic reason to criticise someone) are a matter of record on here –– look up my posts.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
The polls were clear in the primaries that Haley led Biden and Harris more than Trump did and Haley was significantly ahead with Independent swing voters of Trump in the GOP primaries especially.
However polls also showed had she been nominee and Trump gone third party that handed the election back to the Democrats again
Which just goes to underline that the Republicans' problem is Trump.
To an extent, Haley was more electable than Trump, DeSantis or Pence or Vance probably less so
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I don’t want anyone to leave - I like the different voices and views. I accept that I will take a battering for things I write here as everyone will. I never had you down as thin skinned though.
So I’m sad I got rid of you and comfort myself that even though I got rid of you , you had not been got rid of so were able to post the above.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
I can see why that is the value that has to be declared but it is not the real value of the gift. A student revising on their own (maybe with a tutor or family) simply can't make £20k use of it.
And wouldn't pay that. Storm in a teacup.
I would like to see that argument used when paying tax, or gift regulations with an employer - "I have use of benefit in kind of value X. But I didn't really make use of it s. So it is worth much less."
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I'm not going anywhere. Mostly, I just find the same five bores droning on about Donkeygate or whatever it's called nowadays night after night boring, I suspect it will run out of stream soon as even those devoted monomaniacs will reach vinegar strokes at some stage soon.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k, which is £9,000 in cold hard cash paid to the taxman.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
It's the market rate for renting out the property and with the election called at 2 days notice in the middle of exam times I don't think SKS had many other options...
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
"I have taken representations from the OECD, and I have heard those representations. That is why today, Mr Speaker, I am changing the fiscal rules to usher in a new era of British investment"
It could work.
The white heat of industrial progress. You've never had it so good.
I think we should have a new PB Rule that no one is ever allowed to criticise Labour governments and no one is ever allowed to make up rude names about Labour politicians. Otherwise we might lose all the PB lefties as they go back to kindergarten for a lie down and a nice biscuit
Oh FFS!
Will someone please ban Leon for driving a coach and horses through English punctuation standards.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
I think we should have a new PB Rule that no one is ever allowed to criticise Labour governments and no one is ever allowed to make up rude names about Labour politicians. Otherwise we might lose all the PB lefties as they go back to kindergarten for a lie down and a nice biscuit
Oh FFS!
Will someone please ban Leon for driving a coach and horses through English punctuation standards.
Alanbrooke started it – most of his posts are unintelligible. At least with @Leon I have a vague idea what he means.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
Yes, that will be how the notional value is estimated for the declaration but there is no actual cost. Money has not changed hands. This is so trivial it would not surprise me if the actual scandal is who paid the daily Uber fares for the boy.
Just because it is notional, doesn't change the value.
But it does change the nature of the transaction. Forget this and look at Blair's and Boris's Prime Ministerial holidays. There are differences between a well-heeled friend letting them stay at their luxury villa, their friend not charging them for a week when it would normally be rented out, and the villa actually being rented to someone else so the friend instead ponies up the rent for a similar place.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
It’s Central London?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent a place there?
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I'm not going anywhere. Mostly, I just find the same five bores droning on about Donkeygate or whatever it's called nowadays night after night boring, I suspect it will run out of stream soon as even those devoted monomaniacs will reach vinegar strokes at some stage soon.
Funny how topics have phases of dominance then disappear or retreat into the background. Brexit: everywhere, then hardly discussed at all. Scottish indy: rarely gets a mention these days. EVs, cycling and speed limits: regular flare ups then nothing. Ukraine: days now go by with scarcely a post. And of course the big one, Covid, now a fragment of people's deep memory.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
To be fair, in isolation, it’s not that big a deal - Starmer wanted his son shielded from the press and noise and hullabaloo around the election to concentrate on exams.
If there hadn’t been the clothes freebies and just the football tickets then people would probably sympathise.
The problem is that it’s on top of all the freebies, paid for parties etc and crucially all by the same person.
What he should have probably done is to have asked a nearby boarding school to take his son in for the period. I’m sure he’s got loads of friendly boarding schools willing to help him.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
How's he got rid of you when you are still here posting ?
It is like that Alan Partridge sketch where Dave Clifton is speaking "I, Dave Clifton am totally speechless" to which Alan replies "I wish you were, you don't sound it".
Stay or go, but pee or get off the pot.
I would also add there is nothing wrong with what Boulay has said to Anabob there. It is a perfectly fair point to make.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
I can see why that is the value that has to be declared but it is not the real value of the gift. A student revising on their own (maybe with a tutor or family) simply can't make £20k use of it.
And wouldn't pay that. Storm in a teacup.
I would like to see that argument used when paying tax, or gift regulations with an employer - "I have use of benefit in kind of value X. But I didn't really make use of it s. So it is worth much less."
Worth a try!
As @TheScreamingEagles will tell you, that is a very good way to get fired. It would show an attitude of trying to evade the rules. While actually evading the rules.
Since your employer is liable if they don’t stop you receiving gifts and declaring them wrong….
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
"I have taken representations from the OECD, and I have heard those representations. That is why today, Mr Speaker, I am changing the fiscal rules to usher in a new era of British investment"
It could work.
The white heat of industrial progress. You've never had it so good.
"And, Mr Speaker, I ask the PB Tories: Who governs?"
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Other way round. With frocks and glasses, actual cash changed hands. At Arsenal, there was a commercial value because no-one else could hire it while Starmer was watching the game, but none of this applies where the boy was using a room in a flat, even an expensive flat. If there is a scandal here, it will be around how the boy travelled: Lord Alli's cab account or the Metropolitan Police taxi service would both be problematic.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
I once let my son work in my central London office for a whole week. Admittedly I didn't price up this benefit so probably me and my whole company (who were complicit in this largesse) should probably resign, and resign now.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I'm not going anywhere. Mostly, I just find the same five bores droning on about Donkeygate or whatever it's called nowadays night after night boring, I suspect it will run out of stream soon as even those devoted monomaniacs will reach vinegar strokes at some stage soon.
In the YouGov poll in the header, 2% identified this as an issue. TWO PERCENT. Those views must not go unheeded.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
Yes, that will be how the notional value is estimated for the declaration but there is no actual cost. Money has not changed hands. This is so trivial it would not surprise me if the actual scandal is who paid the daily Uber fares for the boy.
Just because it is notional, doesn't change the value.
But it does change the nature of the transaction. Forget this and look at Blair's and Boris's Prime Ministerial holidays. There are differences between a well-heeled friend letting them stay at their luxury villa, their friend not charging them for a week when it would normally be rented out, and the villa actually being rented to someone else so the friend instead ponies up the rent for a similar place.
The point about that is (and the reasoning behind the regulations/laws on gifts) is the effect on the recipient.
If the giver wasn't realising the maximum economic return on the asset, is irrelevant.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Other way round. With frocks and glasses, actual cash changed hands. At Arsenal, there was a commercial value because no-one else could hire it while Starmer was watching the game, but none of this applies where the boy was using a room in a flat, even an expensive flat. If there is a scandal here, it will be around how the boy travelled: Lord Alli's cab account or the Metropolitan Police taxi service would both be problematic.
No, it’s because the explanation offered for the £20k loan of the flat sounds like a desperate lie, and that, in reality, the Starmers wanted the flat for another reason
I have no idea if this is true or not. But the explanation IS bizarre and even lefties on TwiX are scoffing at it
This is important because if it is a lie and if it can be PROVED it is a lie then I reckon Mr “dutiful service” Starmer would have to resign
I think we should have a new PB Rule that no one is ever allowed to criticise Labour governments and no one is ever allowed to make up rude names about Labour politicians. Otherwise we might lose all the PB lefties as they go back to kindergarten for a lie down and a nice biscuit
Oh FFS!
Will someone please ban Leon for driving a coach and horses through English punctuation standards.
Alanbrooke started it – most of his posts are unintelligible. At least with @Leon I have a vague idea what he means.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
It's not his employer, though. So income tax is utterly irrelevant. It is a gift, and has been declared as such.
As such, there's no tax on it. It's potentially liable to inheritance tax, were Alli to die within seven years should his estate (which is likely) exceed the IHT allowance.
Not seeing what the scandal is here. The clothing thing I get, but a mate lending his place for the kid to stay - whatever the place is worth - is fair enough.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
Well Badenoch is happy to take freebies and there are questions about Jenrick raised here.
There was no "folding money". £20K is the notional rental value IF Alli were to rent it out. Otherwise it would stand empty. Alli let Starmer's son have use of it for free. The declared £20K is what the rules dictate. It's got little to do with the real world.
Aside from everything else,
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Give over. Stop reading Guido and ask yourself this. Why haven't the Conservative leadership contenders barked in the night time?
I’ve no idea and I don’t give a fuck. Again, Labour are in government so THEY get the scrutiny
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
"I have taken representations from the OECD, and I have heard those representations. That is why today, Mr Speaker, I am changing the fiscal rules to usher in a new era of British investment"
It could work.
"And, Mr Speaker, I shall now turn to how much more we shall borrow under the new bogus fiscal rule that the wicked old Tories did under the old bogus one, at what rate of interest, what we shall spend it on, and, of course of prime importance, when and how we shall pay it back. Not."
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
There was a case a few years ago of two female police officers who looked after each others children and were held to be infringing some law or other or liable for tax as a benefit (I fail to recall the details).
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Accommodation, value £20,437.28 Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
It’s Central London?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent a place there?
I am quite sure that there will be rules about how the benefit in kind is to be calculated in matters like this, probably tied to the value of the property provided.
The question is whether it is true that it was used for that purpose and only that purpose. My original understanding was that he said it was being used for meetings etc. if it was being used to help organise the election campaign the explanation of a quiet place to study rather falls apart.
Perhaps Starmer’s son needed the flat for another three weeks after exams ended so he could, er, god, I dunno, “decompress”. Make pancakes? Learn to crochet? What?
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
Comments
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1838721277181260039?t=Pxydt8YgE7biaKVqufMhow&s=19
Few will shed a tear if CGT is raised from 20% to 45%, but potential stuff we've heard like the end of the single person's council tax discount, going for people's pensions or reducing the isa allowance, or the end of the 'uplift' at death turning into a substantial stealth inheritance tax rise - will go down like a cup of cold sick.
All the Tories need to do is wait and Corbyn will join.
I'd be pissed if I were a member paying NICs and income tax to fund this stuff.
It is not that far from where she works.
https://x.com/saulstaniforth/status/1838496160295583902
A former govt minister in Singapore has been found guilty of bribery after taking gifts while in office.
The gifts included "flights, hotel stays, musical tickets and grand prix tickets"
£20,000 may not be a massive amount of money to you, but it is to much of the great British public. It is not a trivial sum to be bunged.
Speaking of which I see Sir Sheer Wanker has now accepted £20,000 in folding money so “his son has a quiet room to study in”
1. A quiet room to study in does not cost £20,000 for a few weeks
2. Starmer is a multimillionaire. This is nuts. Why can’t he pay for this stuff himself? This is pure grift
“I’m important so I should get lots of free stuff”
https://www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
This stinks. Starmer is a very wealthy man yet he cannot stop grasping for more, and for increasingly ludicrous “reasons”
That would mean taxing money you have earned by your own effort/saving more than money you haven't.
(And it's Clouseau, with a c – like childish)
To all the lettuces out there, I apologise sincerely.
As with that policy 27 years ago, it wouldn’t massively upset most people at the time, and a few Labour supporters would be over the moon to stick it to the rich, but it would quietly play out over the medium term as investment vanishes from the UK economy.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I mean, there is a limit to one’s patience
It was one of my better flounces. About 3-4 weeks
It could work.
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
Maybe basic taxpayer current rates of 10/18 become 15/20 and Higher 20/24 becomes 25/30. They may also move the annual exempt amount up as £3k is too low imo.
I wonder if @Luckyguy1983 is onto something
So I’m sad I got rid of you and comfort myself that even though I got rid of you , you had not been got rid of so were able to post the above.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k, which is £9,000 in cold hard cash paid to the taxman.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
It's the market rate for renting out the property and with the election called at 2 days notice in the middle of exam times I don't think SKS had many other options...
North Carolina Harris 49% Trump 48%
Georgia Harris 49% Trump 47%
Florida Trump 48% Harris 47%
https://www.independentcenter.org/poll-toplines/independent-center-september-2024-survey-of-georgia-florida-north-carolina
Will someone please ban Leon for driving a coach and horses through English punctuation standards.
This is the first of the “Ali cash” where the explanation offered is itself highly dubious. Free glasses, offices, dresses, arsenal boxes, taylor swift tix - they all make sense even if they are objectionable. We can SEE the designer specs
£20k for a quiet place to study for GCSEs where the dates don’t fit at all??
That sounds like a total lie. And if it can be proved that it is a lie then Starmer would have to resign
Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent a place there?
If there hadn’t been the clothes freebies and just the football tickets then people would probably sympathise.
The problem is that it’s on top of all the freebies, paid for parties etc and crucially all by the same person.
What he should have probably done is to have asked a nearby boarding school to take his son in for the period. I’m sure he’s got loads of friendly boarding schools willing to help him.
It is like that Alan Partridge sketch where Dave Clifton is speaking "I, Dave Clifton am totally speechless" to which Alan replies "I wish you were, you don't sound it".
Stay or go, but pee or get off the pot.
I would also add there is nothing wrong with what Boulay has said to Anabob there. It is a perfectly fair point to make.
1. The dates don’t match the exams and
2. Who the hell accepts a quiet space “in the centre of Covent Garden”
“My son is taking driving lessons so at this difficult time it’s only right he should have a free hotel suite in the Seychelles”
Since your employer is liable if they don’t stop you receiving gifts and declaring them wrong….
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse
- Then the personal gifts
- The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally
- PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
If the giver wasn't realising the maximum economic return on the asset, is irrelevant.
I have no idea if this is true or not. But the explanation IS bizarre and even lefties on TwiX are scoffing at it
This is important because if it is a lie and if it can be PROVED it is a lie then I reckon Mr “dutiful service” Starmer would have to resign
Yikes. They are all quite rubbish
It is a gift, and has been declared as such.
As such, there's no tax on it. It's potentially liable to inheritance tax, were Alli to die within seven years should his estate (which is likely) exceed the IHT allowance.
Not seeing what the scandal is here. The clothing thing I get, but a mate lending his place for the kid to stay - whatever the place is worth - is fair enough.
And the cost isn't to Starmer; it's to Alli.
Let he or she who is free of all sin. Etc etc.
Pb lefties need to adjust to this new reality
Date received: 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
Dates seem to span GCSE exams.
Anything else Sherlock ?
Loan of flat: May 29-July 13
The question is whether it is true that it was used for that purpose and only that purpose. My original understanding was that he said it was being used for meetings etc. if it was being used to help organise the election campaign the explanation of a quiet place to study rather falls apart.
Are you having problems understanding this ?