The Government has borrowed £6.7bn more so far in this financial year than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), delivering the Chancellor less room for her sweeping spending and investment plans.
Public sector net borrowing excluding banks stood at £79.6bn in the six months to September, which was £1.2bn more the same point last year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Fortunately we have Liz Truss to keep us right
(Who chose the Telegraph as "News" website of 2024)?
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
Here is the actual post:
'Perhaps if Harris and Walz stuck to the issues instead of spouting bigoted crap they would be more likely to win.'
My response was that if that was the case Trump, who does not (contrary to your post) ever address a single issue directly but instead spouts 'bigoted crap,' would have lost.
So your argument whether simple or not is irrelevant.
If the Dems do lose we have to look elsewhere for the causes.
Harris and Walz purport to be the 'adults' and the 'nice' people.
By spouting bigoted crap they come across as little different to Trump.
Really ! Talk about false equivalence. Please give us an example of the “ bigoted crap “ .
Walz insinuating that Vance is some sort of sexual deviant - an old slur against hillbillies.
Harris proposing her 'opportunities for black men' including such things as forgivable loans and protected crypto investments.
Now lets say you're in some deprived Appalachian community, perhaps the part of Appalachia in Pennsylvania or North Carolina or Georgia - do either of these give an impression that the Dems are on your side ?
We're lucky that Harris and Walz haven't started complaining about 'deplorables' and 'low information voters'.
The Government has borrowed £6.7bn more so far in this financial year than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), delivering the Chancellor less room for her sweeping spending and investment plans.
Public sector net borrowing excluding banks stood at £79.6bn in the six months to September, which was £1.2bn more the same point last year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Fortunately we have Liz Truss to keep us right
(Who chose the Telegraph as "News" website of 2024)?
The Negergraph. Look at who owns it and what their brain washing agenda is as well as the rest of the press and most places not all on the internet. Work things out for yourselves as I am sure we do. A good book or a number of them on a subject is far better as is having experience in various fields.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
They're clever enough but not brave enough.
10% increases in council tax for a few years would be one way.
Better still would be a council tax revaluation with bands extended to Z.
But that might take a few years to implement.
Make the average persons life a misery.This country is already vastly overpriced for most things. Make a dynamic economy and generate the money needed from that. Stop taking money off people who are generally overstretched and give them a quality of life and and reasons to like being in this country. Stop the never ending black hole of depression and despair. People need hope and a proactive government.
And that requires Government spending (there is no money) and productivity improvements (that actually feed through into wages) so that people feel better.
There is no sign of either of those items as there is no magic money tree so how do we go about it?
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
Here is the actual post:
'Perhaps if Harris and Walz stuck to the issues instead of spouting bigoted crap they would be more likely to win.'
My response was that if that was the case Trump, who does not (contrary to your post) ever address a single issue directly but instead spouts 'bigoted crap,' would have lost.
So your argument whether simple or not is irrelevant.
If the Dems do lose we have to look elsewhere for the causes.
Harris and Walz is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen. In a normal year it would lose, certainly against a normal moderate Republican like Haley but Trump is not a normal or moderate Republican so they still have a chance as does he if he can win the rustbelt again as he did in 2016 Hillary but failed to in 2020 against Biden
Clinton and Gore were considerably further left. For one thing, Clinton campaigned on universal free healthcare, which he (or to be exact Hilary) buggered up with Congress when in office. Neither Harris nor Walz are advocating that.
Nope, Clinton and Gore never called Columbus Day 'indigenous peoples' day like Harris for starters and Clinton and Gore both opposed gay marriage at the time.
Clinton also wasn't proposing the tax rises Harris is either on capital gains tax and corporation tax and the wealth tax she wants, although both proposed rises in the top income tax rate.
On healthcare Harris is also proposing further healthcare subsidies to expand Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA)
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Until Mr and Mrs Voter are willing to vote for a party prepared to increase tax rates, that's the long and short of it.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
That's what Labour governments do.
This budget is going to be very interesting, Unless Reeves reverses last year's NI cuts (or increasing income tax to fix the issue) this Government will die due to austerity / lack of vague improvements at the next election...
When staying in a £1500 a night 5 star Ryokan in central Kyoto, try not to nod off due to acute jet lag while holding a glass of red wine, which then spills all over their exclusive designer tatami mats
Acute jet lag is a new euphemism for your perpetual condition
Yes dear
I’d had one gin martini
SPLOOSH
Quite mortifying. However they have yet to email me the bill so either it wasn’t actually that bad or it was SO bad they’ve had to call in architects
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
If he wins I doubt he will do anything different to last time apart from tax cuts for the super rich. I doubt he will make the four year term. Pointless exercise. The people who support him will have been conned a second time. It would be fabulous to move on from this type of politics and get a leader and administration that improves peoples quality of life and uplifts the majority of them to feel good about themselves. keeps the economy strong. Take a u turn from this bollocks which is precisely what it is.
If Trump wins I expect to see a whole set of stupid ideas being implemented because there will be fewer people quietly stopping him doing stupid things.
So I can easily see Trump creating a trade war by imposing massive tariffs as he has often suggested because he doesn't know why it's a stupid idea. Remember Trump only sees winners and losers and doesn't under that it's possible that both sides can do better out of a carefully managed deal..
Trump has no soft power, he is generally held in contempt across the democratic world, and not just the democratic world. The erosion of US convening power under Trump was quite marked in his first administration because for Trump everything, no matter how high minded, is simply a transaction. The Chinese are more adept at concealing their cynicism.
If the choice is a bullying, transactional Trump administration with increasingly questionable democratic credentials, then many, including the EU may find a bullying, transactional Xi Jinping, with a questionable human rights record a relatively congenial figure. India, a "shithouse country" in Trumpworld is equally unlikely to come on side. The very basis for NATO begins to fall, which can allow even the brittle and unstable Putin regime some opportunities to reshape things to their advantage,
The United States, once it loses its moral claim to be the leader of the free world, will find it impossible to easily regain its influence.
Meanwhile a massive arms race breaks out or, worse, countries like Germany, follow Austria, Hungary and Slovakia and are simply subverted into compromise with the malevolent Muscovite regime. A moral collapse that leads to political collapse and eventual war.
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
They're clever enough but not brave enough.
10% increases in council tax for a few years would be one way.
Better still would be a council tax revaluation with bands extended to Z.
But that might take a few years to implement.
Make the average persons life a misery.This country is already vastly overpriced for most things. Make a dynamic economy and generate the money needed from that. Stop taking money off people who are generally overstretched and give them a quality of life and and reasons to like being in this country. Stop the never ending black hole of depression and despair. People need hope and a proactive government.
And that requires Government spending (there is no money) and productivity improvements (that actually feed through into wages) so that people feel better.
There is no sign of either of those items as there is no magic money tree so how do we go about it?
I wish I had the answer. In this moment I do not. One thing is for sure. Some of us on here are retired, not all. I like the UK. However I am quite happy to spend half the year in other parts of the world. It is cheaper to do so and for the limited time I will be on the planet it seems a sensible option to do as I will have the best of all worlds.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
They're clever enough but not brave enough.
10% increases in council tax for a few years would be one way.
Better still would be a council tax revaluation with bands extended to Z.
But that might take a few years to implement.
Make the average persons life a misery.This country is already vastly overpriced for most things. Make a dynamic economy and generate the money needed from that. Stop taking money off people who are generally overstretched and give them a quality of life and and reasons to like being in this country. Stop the never ending black hole of depression and despair. People need hope and a proactive government.
Proactive governments tend to spend money - where does that money come from ?
A dynamic economy requires wealth creation and wealth creation is a lot harder to do that write about.
Parts, not all, of this country is overpriced in housing.
Those who own their homes outright tend to be on financial easy street.
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
One could argue that ending three years of industrial strife has its own productivity benefit. It is not easy to quantify upticks in productivity for doctors, nurses or even train drivers. Improved morale after a pay increase might put that spring in one's step as one clambers aboard the Flying Scotsman.
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
One could argue that ending three years of industrial strife has its own productivity benefit. It is not easy to quantify upticks in productivity for doctors, nurses or even train drivers. Improved morale after a pay increase might put that spring in one's step as one clambers aboard the Flying Scotsman.
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax, the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
The justice secretary was doing the rounds this morning, and speaking fairly quickly, referring all facts to later and blaming the long arm of history for various states of affairs.
Insofar as it made any sense at all what she seemed to be saying is that this government is going to build huge numbers of new prison places to take all these extra prisoners there will be because of our plan to reduce the prison population.
While echoing the Tory policy on net migration (which was have both more and fewer migrants) I still don't quite see how it is done.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
If he wins I doubt he will do anything different to last time apart from tax cuts for the super rich. I doubt he will make the four year term. Pointless exercise. The people who support him will have been conned a second time. It would be fabulous to move on from this type of politics and get a leader and administration that improves peoples quality of life and uplifts the majority of them to feel good about themselves. keeps the economy strong. Take a u turn from this bollocks which is precisely what it is.
If Trump wins I expect to see a whole set of stupid ideas being implemented because there will be fewer people quietly stopping him doing stupid things.
So I can easily see Trump creating a trade war by imposing massive tariffs as he has often suggested because he doesn't know why it's a stupid idea. Remember Trump only sees winners and losers and doesn't under that it's possible that both sides can do better out of a carefully managed deal..
Trump has no soft power, he is generally held in contempt across the democratic world, and not just the democratic world. The erosion of US convening power under Trump was quite marked in his first administration because for Trump everything, no matter how high minded, is simply a transaction. The Chinese are more adept at concealing their cynicism.
If the choice is a bullying, transactional Trump administration with increasingly questionable democratic credentials, then many, including the EU may find a bullying, transactional Xi Jinping, with a questionable human rights record a relatively congenial figure. India, a "shithouse country" in Trumpworld is equally unlikely to come on side. The very basis for NATO begins to fall, which can allow even the brittle and unstable Putin regime some opportunities to reshape things to their advantage,
The United States, once it loses its moral claim to be the leader of the free world, will find it impossible to easily regain its influence.
Meanwhile a massive arms race breaks out or, worse, countries like Germany, follow Austria, Hungary and Slovakia and are simply subverted into compromise with the malevolent Muscovite regime. A moral collapse that leads to political collapse and eventual war.
The chances of Zelensky deciding to get nuclear weapons for Ukraine again also surge under a second Trump presidency as Trump would stay neutral between Putin and him.
Plus of course the US would be in a trade war with the EU and China, Trump imposing massive tariffs on both if the GOP also win Congress
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
Actually, in the case of 5, Biden was and is doing something. See the federal government support for manufacturing and other “primary” sectors, rather than the usual service sector stuff.
The problem is a combination of it taking time to have an effect and insufficient emphasis on what is happening. Should have been buying a wall of ads for this, starting a while back.
They probably don't even need the wall of ads - the first thing you need is signs near the locations saying being built thanks to Federal Money. It's one thing the EU does well - if it's funded part of the project there is a big logo attached even in Turkey (where an EU fund paid for a minor bit of Antalya's recent tram network).
The other problem is that when they do actually want to do things to address perceived weaknesses, the Republicans have become such a nihilistic party set on advantage at all costs, they block them. For example Biden tried to get through a bill that adressed illegal immigration - the GOP blocked it at Trump's behest because they thought it might harm his election chances.
The Republican controlled judiciary now makes it tricky to get the kind of big ticket policies through that would give Dems some big broad brush policy wins outside the economic stuff. I seriously doubt Obamacare would get anywhere today.
It's a broken political system that favours wreckers - which sadly for the Dems the GOP got very good at even before Trump - but now are pretty open about in terms of finding ways of making government inoperable as a method to destroy it. It's very difficult to have a political system set up with the checks on what you can do, if one party decides to use those to gum up and break that system severely.
It's like if the Lords had a real veto on Commons legislation it didn't like other than finance bills, a Tory blocking majority, and tore down anything Labour proposed, even if it was something they'd normally agree with. Just because they hated the idea of a Labour government and didn't want it to fully function.
It also rather leaves the argument in the realm of 'they're the bad guys/no they're the bad guys' on which most people go on gut, perception and take their cultural 'side' rather than expect good faith policy choices and debates.
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
If Kimi wins how long will it last? It could be to the next election or every couple of months we could have a leadership challenge. Revolving non stop challenge till people become oblivious to it.
Hopefully this time the MPs will accept the result of the election, and not start plotting against her from Day 1.
There's a year's grace isn't there? Unless you're so utterly disastrous that you willingly grasp the pearl handled revolver.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
Here is the actual post:
'Perhaps if Harris and Walz stuck to the issues instead of spouting bigoted crap they would be more likely to win.'
My response was that if that was the case Trump, who does not (contrary to your post) ever address a single issue directly but instead spouts 'bigoted crap,' would have lost.
So your argument whether simple or not is irrelevant.
If the Dems do lose we have to look elsewhere for the causes.
Harris and Walz is the most left liberal Democrat ticket since Dukakis and Bentsen. In a normal year it would lose, certainly against a normal moderate Republican like Haley but Trump is not a normal or moderate Republican so they still have a chance as does he if he can win the rustbelt again as he did in 2016 Hillary but failed to in 2020 against Biden
Clinton and Gore were considerably further left. For one thing, Clinton campaigned on universal free healthcare, which he (or to be exact Hilary) buggered up with Congress when in office. Neither Harris nor Walz are advocating that.
Nope, Clinton and Gore never called Columbus Day 'indigenous peoples' day like Harris for starters and Clinton and Gore both opposed gay marriage at the time.
Clinton also wasn't proposing the tax rises Harris is either on capital gains tax and corporation tax and the wealth tax she wants, although both proposed rises in the top income tax rate.
On healthcare Harris is also proposing further healthcare subsidies to expand Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA)
Clinton also had a sensible compromise position on abortion (safe, legal, and rare), as opposed to the extremist rhetoric coming out of the Democrats now, which comes across to the average Christian as being all in favour of as many abortions as possible.
That’s before we get to the sex changes for illegal immigrant prisoners.
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
Private sector productivity has barely increased since 2008 yet wages have gone up there too.
How much of that is because of changes in the sectoral balance of the economy ?
Replacing North Sea oil with hand car washes reduces overall productivity.
But there are productivity problems in the private sector and reasons for them.
One such being that not enough of the benefits of productivity increases are going to the workers instead of the executive oligarchy or government. And if the workers don't get any benefits from increasing productivity then they have little reason to encourage them.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
Has anyone (eg Mr Chump) explored the practicalities of Mr Chump deporting 20 million people, yet? I think that number is about what he is proposing.
What happens if targeted countries don't want to accept them? Does he just leave them in concentration camps?
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
Other way round, Mr Eek. If you go for taxing the vallue of the property, you have to make a valuation of each individual property, which would take a year and a day. If you look just at the value of the site, based on its development value, you could do that in a matter of minutes...... I have a feeling that the value of the site where I live is going to be exactly the same as that of the two properties on either side of me.
My point of view is the UK economy does ok irrespective of who is in charge as does the USA one UK and USA PLC run themselves. Lots of people may disagree with me based on how many government employees there are and how much the government spends on the economy etc. As time marches on government will become more irrelevant. Small businesses and the self employed along with multi national companies generate a massive share of GDP and employ the majority of people.
If Kimi wins how long will it last? It could be to the next election or every couple of months we could have a leadership challenge. Revolving non stop challenge till people become oblivious to it.
Hopefully this time the MPs will accept the result of the election, and not start plotting against her from Day 1.
There's a year's grace isn't there? Unless you're so utterly disastrous that you willingly grasp the pearl handled revolver.
30% threshold now required for a VONC much harder to reach and in opposition not government far easier as you can make poll gains as leader just by trashing the hapless Starmer government
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
That is simply not sustainable.
It keeps the cruise companies in business.
My favoured cruise line is Norwegian owned and Russian financed. That's almost Trumpian! Although isn't he Russian owned and Russian (via Germany ) financed.
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
My point of view is the UK economy does ok irrespective of who is in charge as does the USA one UK and USA PLC run themselves. Lots of people may disagree with me based on how many government employees there are and how much the government spends on the economy etc. As time marches on government will become more irrelevant. Small businesses and the self employed along with multi national companies generate a massive share of GDP and employ the majority of people.
And Labour doing a couple of terms as well as Trump doing one term will change very little in the great scheme of things. Long term it will make little difference. That is how the Chinese view Trump and they make a good point.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
Other way round, Mr Eek. If you go for taxing the vallue of the property, you have to make a valuation of each individual property, which would take a year and a day. If you look just at the value of the site, based on its development value, you could do that in a matter of minutes...... I have a feeling that the value of the site where I live is going to be exactly the same as that of the two properties on either side of me.
You don't know the development value until you know whether it can be developed, and what the ground conditions are. That makes a hell of a difference, and is why for example such a report (which is expensive) may be required before a Planning Application is even validated for processing.
Whilst vales of individual properties could to a sufficient accuracy, if needed, just be downloaded en bloc from Zoopla for the first cut.
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
That is simply not sustainable.
The UK is becoming a nation that punishes work with tax and rewards idleness with sickness benefits. It started with Theresa May expanding the definition of what is allowable for sickness benefits but neither Boris nor Rishi undid that. Along with her idiotically broad definition of modern slavery Theresa May is responsible for a lot of the issues we have today, millions of additional people claiming to be sick because they can't be bothered to work and asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported. Truly a disaster.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
Other way round, Mr Eek. If you go for taxing the vallue of the property, you have to make a valuation of each individual property, which would take a year and a day. If you look just at the value of the site, based on its development value, you could do that in a matter of minutes...... I have a feeling that the value of the site where I live is going to be exactly the same as that of the two properties on either side of me.
Yeah, Mr. Clipp points out exactly the problem with property value taxes. I mean, there are online valuation tools but all they do is apply a few high level factors. Pretty much everyone is going to appeal against whatever valuation such a scheme comes up with. There is a machiavellian solution - that you get people to value their own properties, but that then becomes the CPO value - so if someone values their house at £1 for valuation purposes, the council then has a very easy and cheap way to acquire council housing. Should be noted of course that this doesn't actually address the housing shortage except at the margins - your regular reminder it is supply, not tenure, which is the main problem. Even quite bright people often don't grasp this.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
Other way round, Mr Eek. If you go for taxing the vallue of the property, you have to make a valuation of each individual property, which would take a year and a day. If you look just at the value of the site, based on its development value, you could do that in a matter of minutes...... I have a feeling that the value of the site where I live is going to be exactly the same as that of the two properties on either side of me.
You don't know the development value until you know whether it can be developed, and what the ground conditions are. That makes a hell of a difference, and is why for example such a report (which is expensive) may be required before a Planning Application is even validated for processing.
Whilst vales of individual properties could to a sufficient accuracy, if needed, just be downloaded en bloc from Zoopla for the first cut.
What MattW says - sold house prices (and the current value based on previous price) is a fixed issue - I can point at various models that you could run against an available dataset to price most properties. for the few houses not caught just find the nearest houses in the same band and use that until the property is sold.
Land Value is a minimum of a 10 year project and would require surveying and appeals...
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
One could argue that ending three years of industrial strife has its own productivity benefit. It is not easy to quantify upticks in productivity for doctors, nurses or even train drivers. Improved morale after a pay increase might put that spring in one's step as one clambers aboard the Flying Scotsman.
It might do.
So we'll look forward to productivity increases and restricted pay claims for the next few years on the railways and NHS.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
Here is the actual post:
'Perhaps if Harris and Walz stuck to the issues instead of spouting bigoted crap they would be more likely to win.'
My response was that if that was the case Trump, who does not (contrary to your post) ever address a single issue directly but instead spouts 'bigoted crap,' would have lost.
So your argument whether simple or not is irrelevant.
If the Dems do lose we have to look elsewhere for the causes.
No. Trump’s bigoted crap appeals to the voters. Harris/Walz’s different crap does not.
It really is that simple.
The Democrats are focusing their messaging on the wrong thing (or at least the reporting we see on here. Apologies by X, Russia and who knows who else).
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
The British railway compensation scheme really should be a source of national pride. Our trains don't get you there on time, but because of this they end up startlingly cheap. This is a boon especially for business travellers for whom someone else is paying for the ticket, and can provide quite a decent little top-up income.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
Other way round, Mr Eek. If you go for taxing the vallue of the property, you have to make a valuation of each individual property, which would take a year and a day. If you look just at the value of the site, based on its development value, you could do that in a matter of minutes...... I have a feeling that the value of the site where I live is going to be exactly the same as that of the two properties on either side of me.
Yeah, Mr. Clipp points out exactly the problem with property value taxes. I mean, there are online valuation tools but all they do is apply a few high level factors. Pretty much everyone is going to appeal against whatever valuation such a scheme comes up with. There is a machiavellian solution - that you get people to value their own properties, but that then becomes the CPO value - so if someone values their house at £1 for valuation purposes, the council then has a very easy and cheap way to acquire council housing. Should be noted of course that this doesn't actually address the housing shortage except at the margins - your regular reminder it is supply, not tenure, which is the main problem. Even quite bright people often don't grasp this.
You can only appeal if you are allowed an appeal. But the reality is any change is going to be appealed by people who are worse off - however saying you house is worth £x,000 less than you neighbours isn't a good idea when the valuer comes to value it when you sell it.
There are multiple ways of the machiavellian solution - one is that mortgage companies will look at the historic valuation and go - well it's only worth x based on the 2025 valuation and local house price inflation since then
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
One could argue that ending three years of industrial strife has its own productivity benefit. It is not easy to quantify upticks in productivity for doctors, nurses or even train drivers. Improved morale after a pay increase might put that spring in one's step as one clambers aboard the Flying Scotsman.
Here here!
I always smile at the £500,000 a year salaried PB faithful banging out posts all day carping on about unproductive teachers and clinicians.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
Has anyone (eg Mr Chump) explored the practicalities of Mr Chump deporting 20 million people, yet? I think that number is about what he is proposing.
What happens if targeted countries don't want to accept them? Does he just leave them in concentration camps?
The whole point of populism is that you win by exactly not addressing complex questions with more than a soundbite. It works fine. Does anyone who voted Trump in 2016 vote in the POTUS election stop voting for him because he neither built a wall nor says now that he will do so?
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Except most of the rapid increase in costs is coming from Adult social care and an aging population...
Not according to that Times article and the articles linked to it
A massive increase in social care and special education for kids is a major major issue
It quotes percentages (25% for Children and 18% for Adults) without specifying the starting points.
Council spending on adult and children’s social care is due to rise by 10% in real terms this year for the second consecutive year, government data has shown.
Planned expenditure on adult social care will increase by £2.1bn, to £24.5bn, in 2024-25, a rise of 9.2% after taking account of inflation; this follows an increase of £2bn (10% in real terms) in 2023-24.
Increases in budgeted costs have been even steeper for children’s social care, with a second consecutive rise of 11% in real terms, taking planned expenditure to £14.2bn in 2024-25, according to the figures from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC).
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
I'm on a Dutch/German intercity train that will be an hour late, because the ICE to Berlin that was the first part of my journey has been cancelled. Wondering if I can get delay repay out of NS International.
I was recently an hour late (in the UK) because my train was cancelled, and the next one was an hour later, and ran on time. The cheeky gits tried to get away with the 30-59 minute refund, and I had to appeal to get the rest of my refund. This is tbe second time something similar has happened, so SWR have obviously told their staff or the AI to try it on
When staying in a £1500 a night 5 star Ryokan in central Kyoto, try not to nod off due to acute jet lag while holding a glass of red wine, which then spills all over their exclusive designer tatami mats
Acute jet lag is a new euphemism for your perpetual condition
Yes dear
I’d had one gin martini
SPLOOSH
Quite mortifying. However they have yet to email me the bill so either it wasn’t actually that bad or it was SO bad they’ve had to call in architects
You’ll be pleased to know that hotel housekeeping departments put a fair amount of effort into thinking about how to maintain and clean all of the expensive fixtures and fittings in their rooms.
Put it this way, you won’t be the first person to have dropped a glass of red wine on something. You’re probably not even the first this week.
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
That is simply not sustainable.
The UK is becoming a nation that punishes work with tax and rewards idleness with sickness benefits. It started with Theresa May expanding the definition of what is allowable for sickness benefits but neither Boris nor Rishi undid that. Along with her idiotically broad definition of modern slavery Theresa May is responsible for a lot of the issues we have today, millions of additional people claiming to be sick because they can't be bothered to work and asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported. Truly a disaster.
Yep. I actually think TMay was the worst of them all. Worse than Truss. The worst PM since the 1970s
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
If he wins I doubt he will do anything different to last time apart from tax cuts for the super rich. I doubt he will make the four year term. Pointless exercise. The people who support him will have been conned a second time. It would be fabulous to move on from this type of politics and get a leader and administration that improves peoples quality of life and uplifts the majority of them to feel good about themselves. keeps the economy strong. Take a u turn from this bollocks which is precisely what it is.
If Trump wins I expect to see a whole set of stupid ideas being implemented because there will be fewer people quietly stopping him doing stupid things.
So I can easily see Trump creating a trade war by imposing massive tariffs as he has often suggested because he doesn't know why it's a stupid idea. Remember Trump only sees winners and losers and doesn't under that it's possible that both sides can do better out of a carefully managed deal..
Trump has no soft power, he is generally held in contempt across the democratic world, and not just the democratic world. The erosion of US convening power under Trump was quite marked in his first administration because for Trump everything, no matter how high minded, is simply a transaction. The Chinese are more adept at concealing their cynicism.
If the choice is a bullying, transactional Trump administration with increasingly questionable democratic credentials, then many, including the EU may find a bullying, transactional Xi Jinping, with a questionable human rights record a relatively congenial figure. India, a "shithouse country" in Trumpworld is equally unlikely to come on side. The very basis for NATO begins to fall, which can allow even the brittle and unstable Putin regime some opportunities to reshape things to their advantage,
The United States, once it loses its moral claim to be the leader of the free world, will find it impossible to easily regain its influence.
Meanwhile a massive arms race breaks out or, worse, countries like Germany, follow Austria, Hungary and Slovakia and are simply subverted into compromise with the malevolent Muscovite regime. A moral collapse that leads to political collapse and eventual war.
The chances of Zelensky deciding to get nuclear weapons for Ukraine again also surge under a second Trump presidency as Trump would stay neutral between Putin and him.
Plus of course the US would be in a trade war with the EU and China, Trump imposing massive tariffs on both if the GOP also win Congress
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
If Kimi wins how long will it last? It could be to the next election or every couple of months we could have a leadership challenge. Revolving non stop challenge till people become oblivious to it.
New 1922 Committee chief Bob Blackman has advocated doubling the threshold needed to oust leaders.
Yes. But it’s akin to counting the threshold on one hand to being able to count it in two hands and half a foot. Jenrick and Cleverly each got MPs in the final vote around the new threshold. And One Nation Group are now sitting out the rest of the election. How to bring party all together, in cabinet and country is going to be extremely difficult to whoever wins. You notice Jenrick wants wet signatures to his policies to even be allowed to stand again as MP - that’s St Bart’s Day massacre of moderates part two no different than the damage Bonehead Boris done in part one.
Also concerning to me would be if by far the weakest candidate beats the stronger one again in members vote, as that would have a pattern of skin colour to the inexplicable decision.
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
The British railway compensation scheme really should be a source of national pride. Our trains don't get you there on time, but because of this they end up startlingly cheap. This is a boon especially for business travellers for whom someone else is paying for the ticket, and can provide quite a decent little top-up income.
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
The British railway compensation scheme really should be a source of national pride. Our trains don't get you there on time, but because of this they end up startlingly cheap. This is a boon especially for business travellers for whom someone else is paying for the ticket, and can provide quite a decent little top-up income.
It was a sad day when the corporate train booking system became compulsory.
If Kimi wins how long will it last? It could be to the next election or every couple of months we could have a leadership challenge. Revolving non stop challenge till people become oblivious to it.
New 1922 Committee chief Bob Blackman has advocated doubling the threshold needed to oust leaders.
Yes. But it’s akin to counting the threshold on one hand to being able to count it in two hands and half a foot. Jenrick and Cleverly each got MPs in the final vote around the new threshold. And One Nation Group are now sitting out the rest of the election. How to bring party all together, in cabinet and country is going to be extremely difficult to whoever wins. You notice Jenrick wants wet signatures to his policies to even be allowed to stand again as MP - that’s St Bart’s Day massacre of moderates part two no different than the damage Bonehead Boris done in part one.
Also concerning to me would be if by far the weakest candidate beats the stronger one again in members vote, as that would have a pattern of skin colour to the inexplicable decision.
Were Jenrick to go ahead with that plan I wonder how many One Nation Group MPs may decide that being the defacto Lib Dem candidate at the next election will be a good idea given the election result in their constituency.
If the Lib Dems were second in the constituency and Jenrick is seeking Reform voters it may be a safe bet for those MPs..
If Kimi wins how long will it last? It could be to the next election or every couple of months we could have a leadership challenge. Revolving non stop challenge till people become oblivious to it.
New 1922 Committee chief Bob Blackman has advocated doubling the threshold needed to oust leaders.
Yes. But it’s akin to counting the threshold on one hand to being able to count it in two hands and half a foot. Jenrick and Cleverly each got MPs in the final vote around the new threshold. And One Nation Group are now sitting out the rest of the election. How to bring party all together, in cabinet and country is going to be extremely difficult to whoever wins. You notice Jenrick wants wet signatures to his policies to even be allowed to stand again as MP - that’s St Bart’s Day massacre of moderates part two no different than the damage Bonehead Boris done in part one.
Also concerning to me would be if by far the weakest candidate beats the stronger one again in members vote, as that would have a pattern of skin colour to the inexplicable decision.
On the polling evidence Badenoch is the weaker candidate.
Electoral Calculus already has a poll saying a Jenrick led Tory party would get a hung parliament and deprive Starmer of his majority.
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
Sneaky pull of the emergency stop cord (or whatever is the modern equivalent) in order. Though they probably have CCTV trained on them nowadays.
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
That is simply not sustainable.
The UK is becoming a nation that punishes work with tax and rewards idleness with sickness benefits. It started with Theresa May expanding the definition of what is allowable for sickness benefits but neither Boris nor Rishi undid that. Along with her idiotically broad definition of modern slavery Theresa May is responsible for a lot of the issues we have today, millions of additional people claiming to be sick because they can't be bothered to work and asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported. Truly a disaster.
Yep. I actually think TMay was the worst of them all. Worse than Truss. The worst PM since the 1970s
Feelgood legislation has terrible effects.
Governments pass laws that earn plaudits from pressure groups, while saddling local authorities with the cost of implementing them. Eventually, the authorities go bankrupt and services are devastated, in order to prioritise parasites.
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
Water bills will go up by more than initially expected over the next five years to fund higher costs and more investment, the BBC understands.
The regulator, Ofwat, is in the process of deciding how much customer bills will be allowed to rise.
In July, Ofwat provisionally agreed to allow bills to rise by an average of £19 per year between 2025 and 2030 - totalling a £94 increase, or a 21% rise, over that period.
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
Expand the incest laws and scoop up official and unofficial marriages.
Mr. Pointer, and when you try to tax wealth, will the wealthy and their assets stay in this country, or leave?
Not all wealth can be moved, of course. Council tax on steroids is possible. Or you could drive farmers into bankruptcy (the pre-election murmuring about imposing inheritance tax on farms might come true).
WRT farms, the budget might tweak a bit in order to deal with non-farmers usiing farms as tax planning; but there will be no major change to the exemption in ordinary 'family farm' cases.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
Making most homes liable for inheritance tax would be hugely unpopular regardless of the rate, now only homes worth over £1 million pay inheritance tax the family home is otherwise exempt for a married couple
There are some egregious errors in this comment, but DYOR. If anyone believes that only houses worth over £1m are liable to IHT they might have a horrible shock.
They are for married couples
Only married couples with no other assets.
The vast majority of married couples, even home owning married couples, do not have non property assets of around £400,000 or more to take them over the threshold
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
That is simply not sustainable.
The UK is becoming a nation that punishes work with tax and rewards idleness with sickness benefits. It started with Theresa May expanding the definition of what is allowable for sickness benefits but neither Boris nor Rishi undid that. Along with her idiotically broad definition of modern slavery Theresa May is responsible for a lot of the issues we have today, millions of additional people claiming to be sick because they can't be bothered to work and asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported. Truly a disaster.
Yep. I actually think TMay was the worst of them all. Worse than Truss. The worst PM since the 1970s
No, May actually did the hard work to get the Brexit deal which formed 90% of what Boris agreed with the EU.
May also never crashed the markets like Truss leading to Tory poll collapse.
Yes she was a little woke on things like modern slavery but then for those actually in modern slavery she made a difference to their lives as she did on her work for domestic violence victims. May had a moral compass.
May also won a general election, even if by less than expected and without a majority and after her dementia tax dissaster proprosals she still had enough MPs to do a deal with the DUP which is more than Rishi ever did
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
That is simply not sustainable.
The UK is becoming a nation that punishes work with tax and rewards idleness with sickness benefits. It started with Theresa May expanding the definition of what is allowable for sickness benefits but neither Boris nor Rishi undid that. Along with her idiotically broad definition of modern slavery Theresa May is responsible for a lot of the issues we have today, millions of additional people claiming to be sick because they can't be bothered to work and asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported. Truly a disaster.
Yep. I actually think TMay was the worst of them all. Worse than Truss. The worst PM since the 1970s
No, May actually did the hard work to get the Brexit deal which formed 90% of what Boris agreed with the EU.
May also never crashed the markets like Truss leading to Tory poll collapse.
Yes she was a little woke on things like modern slavery but then for those actually in modern slavery she made a difference to their lives as she did on her work for domestic violence victims. May had a moral compass.
May also won a general election, even if by less than expected and without a majority and after her dementia tax dissaster proprosals she still had enough MPs to do a deal with the DUP which is more than Rishi ever did
How the sodding heck can you call tackling modern slavery 'woke' ?
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
That is simply not sustainable.
The UK is becoming a nation that punishes work with tax and rewards idleness with sickness benefits. It started with Theresa May expanding the definition of what is allowable for sickness benefits but neither Boris nor Rishi undid that. Along with her idiotically broad definition of modern slavery Theresa May is responsible for a lot of the issues we have today, millions of additional people claiming to be sick because they can't be bothered to work and asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported. Truly a disaster.
Yep. I actually think TMay was the worst of them all. Worse than Truss. The worst PM since the 1970s
No, May actually did the hard work to get the Brexit deal which formed 90% of what Boris agreed with the EU.
May also never crashed the markets like Truss leading to Tory poll collapse.
Yes she was a little woke on things like modern slavery but then for those actually in modern slavery she made a difference to their lives as she did on her work for domestic violence victims. May had a moral compass.
May also won a general election, even if by less than expected and without a majority and after her dementia tax dissaster proprosals she still had enough MPs to do a deal with the DUP which is more than Rishi ever did
How the sodding heck can you call tackling modern slavery 'woke' ?
Well MaxPB clearly thinks doing that is woke as in his words it has led to '...asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported.'
If Kimi wins how long will it last? It could be to the next election or every couple of months we could have a leadership challenge. Revolving non stop challenge till people become oblivious to it.
New 1922 Committee chief Bob Blackman has advocated doubling the threshold needed to oust leaders.
Yes. But it’s akin to counting the threshold on one hand to being able to count it in two hands and half a foot. Jenrick and Cleverly each got MPs in the final vote around the new threshold. And One Nation Group are now sitting out the rest of the election. How to bring party all together, in cabinet and country is going to be extremely difficult to whoever wins. You notice Jenrick wants wet signatures to his policies to even be allowed to stand again as MP - that’s St Bart’s Day massacre of moderates part two no different than the damage Bonehead Boris done in part one.
Also concerning to me would be if by far the weakest candidate beats the stronger one again in members vote, as that would have a pattern of skin colour to the inexplicable decision.
Good morning
My attitude as well, and it seems @HYUFD and others see Jenrick as the one to bring back Boris and Mogg in celebration of a move to the right and winning their core vote, but you do not win elections with your core vote
Mind you @HYUFD is consistent as he does admire Farage and Trump and the right generally
To be fair they should just be honest in their beliefs and join Reform, their spiritual home
As for the rest of us, Badenoch is the only choice in a poor field to lead the challenge to Starmer and Labour
Badenoch does seem different and my wife quite warmed to her when she heard her speaking
Anyway only a few more days to wait to see if the membership can do sanity, or insanity in choosing Jenrick
That both sides are still obsessed by McDonald, 48 hours later and to the exclusion of almost everything else, makes it one of the biggest single stories of the whole campaign.
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
Other way round, Mr Eek. If you go for taxing the vallue of the property, you have to make a valuation of each individual property, which would take a year and a day. If you look just at the value of the site, based on its development value, you could do that in a matter of minutes...... I have a feeling that the value of the site where I live is going to be exactly the same as that of the two properties on either side of me.
My house has no particular architectural value. However next door, and most of those around me are conservation grade. Does that increase or decrease to value of my site?
If Kimi wins how long will it last? It could be to the next election or every couple of months we could have a leadership challenge. Revolving non stop challenge till people become oblivious to it.
New 1922 Committee chief Bob Blackman has advocated doubling the threshold needed to oust leaders.
Yes. But it’s akin to counting the threshold on one hand to being able to count it in two hands and half a foot. Jenrick and Cleverly each got MPs in the final vote around the new threshold. And One Nation Group are now sitting out the rest of the election. How to bring party all together, in cabinet and country is going to be extremely difficult to whoever wins. You notice Jenrick wants wet signatures to his policies to even be allowed to stand again as MP - that’s St Bart’s Day massacre of moderates part two no different than the damage Bonehead Boris done in part one.
Also concerning to me would be if by far the weakest candidate beats the stronger one again in members vote, as that would have a pattern of skin colour to the inexplicable decision.
On the polling evidence Badenoch is the weaker candidate.
Electoral Calculus already has a poll saying a Jenrick led Tory party would get a hung parliament and deprive Starmer of his majority.
Oh Stop it will you. 🙄. That’s complete fantasy polling.
In the real world elections are won on lost on leader v leader, chancellor v shadow, manifesto v manifesto, economic policy v economic policy - what you are polling doesn’t have any of that. And not to ignore the millstone the Conservatives carry into the coming General Elections, how awful they have been in government the last 4 years. once you shred reputations for economic competence and governmental competence, what a long road back it is from there. The actual question is, what brings the Lib Dem held seats the Conservatives need to form a government, what brings the voters Conservatives have lost to Reform, but need in order to form a government, back into the fold, that’s something polling at this point of the electoral cycle does not have built in.
Kemi Badenoch subtly won this at conference week. Maternity pay remarks a mistake? She is doubling down now by adding minimum wage to the burdens on existing business and preventing start ups. The trillion pound a year bill and government burdens on business is already here after 13 years of Conservative government - politicians buying favourable front pages and votes with generous offers paid not by them, but by businesses and future taxpayers - but Starmer’s woke government is only going to make the problems worse and even more obvious, which is why Badenoch is spot on with her pro business, pro productivity platform. The Party needs to move on sharpish from Boris Eff business era.
Meanwhile Jendrick’s One Dimensional platform is all in on Johnny Foreigner being a freeloading terror risk, pull up the drawbridge now before they swamp our housing and public services, take our jobs and turn England into a foreign land.
Another move towards Trump on the betting. He's the fav in all 7 battleground states now. Biggest move is in Nevada based (I think) on the Ralston analysis of early voting there.
"Central government tax receipts grew strongly (and cost of actually borrowing the money is down), but this was outweighed by higher expenditure, largely driven by benefits uprating and higher spending on public services due to increased running costs."
e.g
"Central government spending on providing public services and benefits continue to grow year-on-year, with this month’s combined costs being £4.0 bn more than in July last year. These increases were partially offset by a £1.0 bn year-on-year reduction in debt interest payable."
Or, in other words, wage increases.
The problem isn't wage increases, its wage increases without productivity increases.
Without productivity increases the wage increases feed through to price / tax / borrowing increases.
We are taking too much money off people who are working to give to people who are not working.
That is simply not sustainable.
The UK is becoming a nation that punishes work with tax and rewards idleness with sickness benefits. It started with Theresa May expanding the definition of what is allowable for sickness benefits but neither Boris nor Rishi undid that. Along with her idiotically broad definition of modern slavery Theresa May is responsible for a lot of the issues we have today, millions of additional people claiming to be sick because they can't be bothered to work and asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported. Truly a disaster.
Yep. I actually think TMay was the worst of them all. Worse than Truss. The worst PM since the 1970s
No, May actually did the hard work to get the Brexit deal which formed 90% of what Boris agreed with the EU.
May also never crashed the markets like Truss leading to Tory poll collapse.
Yes she was a little woke on things like modern slavery but then for those actually in modern slavery she made a difference to their lives as she did on her work for domestic violence victims. May had a moral compass.
May also won a general election, even if by less than expected and without a majority and after her dementia tax dissaster proprosals she still had enough MPs to do a deal with the DUP which is more than Rishi ever did
How the sodding heck can you call tackling modern slavery 'woke' ?
Well MaxPB clearly thinks doing that is woke as in his words it has led to '...asylum seekers being coached by their representatives to claim they are caught up in modern slavery meaning they can't be deported.'
But @MaxPB would perhaps be at home in Ancient Rome.
That both sides are still obsessed by McDonald, 48 hours later and to the exclusion of almost everything else, makes it one of the biggest single stories of the whole campaign.
Harris is getting out-reality-TV'ed. She needs some substance, she can't win on who's better at reality TV.
I hope Biden has been practicing his fake heart attack face, it's time to inaugurate her.
If Kimi wins how long will it last? It could be to the next election or every couple of months we could have a leadership challenge. Revolving non stop challenge till people become oblivious to it.
New 1922 Committee chief Bob Blackman has advocated doubling the threshold needed to oust leaders.
Yes. But it’s akin to counting the threshold on one hand to being able to count it in two hands and half a foot. Jenrick and Cleverly each got MPs in the final vote around the new threshold. And One Nation Group are now sitting out the rest of the election. How to bring party all together, in cabinet and country is going to be extremely difficult to whoever wins. You notice Jenrick wants wet signatures to his policies to even be allowed to stand again as MP - that’s St Bart’s Day massacre of moderates part two no different than the damage Bonehead Boris done in part one.
Also concerning to me would be if by far the weakest candidate beats the stronger one again in members vote, as that would have a pattern of skin colour to the inexplicable decision.
Were Jenrick to go ahead with that plan I wonder how many One Nation Group MPs may decide that being the defacto Lib Dem candidate at the next election will be a good idea given the election result in their constituency.
If the Lib Dems were second in the constituency and Jenrick is seeking Reform voters it may be a safe bet for those MPs..
Yes. Or just decide it’s time to quit politics. We know what happened to the party when Boris did this, it starved the benches and cabinet of strong talent and alternative points of view, all adding to the weakness of the party and that awful election.
Lady Thatcher didn’t throw wets out the party, she realised how vital to put them in the cabinet and give them something to deliver.
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
The British railway compensation scheme really should be a source of national pride. Our trains don't get you there on time, but because of this they end up startlingly cheap. This is a boon especially for business travellers for whom someone else is paying for the ticket, and can provide quite a decent little top-up income.
Avanti have earnt me some again this morning with another 35 minute delay.
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
The British railway compensation scheme really should be a source of national pride. Our trains don't get you there on time, but because of this they end up startlingly cheap. This is a boon especially for business travellers for whom someone else is paying for the ticket, and can provide quite a decent little top-up income.
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
It's relatively easy to make it illegal to marry your cousin in the UK. We already have a list of people you can't marry because of your relationship with them (e.g. siblings), we just expand that list.
We can also make it illegal to have sex with a cousin (as it is already with a sibling), but we would have to have an exemption to accommodate those who are already (perfectly legally) married to their cousins.
The real problem is that we generally recognize marriages performed anywhere around the globe, even if we wouldn't permit those people to marry (so for example, AIUI, we will usually recognize a 14 year old as legally married, if they did so in a jurisdiction which permits this) - so I suspect we'd find people who really want to marry their cousins would go off to places like Pakistan and reappear married a short time later, which puts us in a rather difficult position.
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
Expand the incest laws and scoop up official and unofficial marriages.
Yes but how do you prove that a couple - often, in these cases, a couple where one party has only just arrived in the country; and at best whose documentation is not what anyone in the UK would be familiar with; at worst entirely absent - are cousins?
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
Google “cousin marriage” and “Pakistan” and prepare to be depressed. And then ask @SandyRentool about the impact of this in the UK
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
The British railway compensation scheme really should be a source of national pride. Our trains don't get you there on time, but because of this they end up startlingly cheap. This is a boon especially for business travellers for whom someone else is paying for the ticket, and can provide quite a decent little top-up income.
Avanti have earnt me some again this morning with another 35 minute delay.
The fatality last night in the crash between the Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury and Shrewsbury to Machynlleth trains is quite scary as it seems they were on the single line section which really should not happen
Incidentally my wife and I travelled that route last week
My excitement this morning is hoping that I arrive at my destination 60+ minutes late, rather than 59 minutes late, thereby doubling my Delay Repay entitlement.
The British railway compensation scheme really should be a source of national pride. Our trains don't get you there on time, but because of this they end up startlingly cheap. This is a boon especially for business travellers for whom someone else is paying for the ticket, and can provide quite a decent little top-up income.
DYOR but I think there is a nice exam question here as to whether it could be a criminal offence to pocket the compensation when someone else has paid for the ticket. (Fine of course if the body paying is informed and gives consent).
Not enough attention is being given to the very real possibility that this government simply runs out of money
The latest fiscal numbers are a bit better than expected thanks to slightly higher tax receipts, even while this year to date has been worse than forecast.
But we’ve already run out of money. The outgoing government tried to bribe the voters with two very expensive NI cuts which have used up the entire fiscal headroom. The new government refusing to reverse these leaves us in a pretty poor position. Not a precarious one - our government bond yields aren’t doing anything worrying and our deficit position is better than several peers, so much so that the pound has been rising.
But there’s not going to be money for a spending bonanza anytime soon. It’s another decade of austerity ahead. Chronic austerity.
Problem is there are whole parts of the day to day running of the country where things have been cut to the bone already.
Court sitting days have reduced again while court cases are now being scheduled well into 2026...
There is a simple solution staring us all in the face: tax the £20tn of wealth in the country.
Unfortunately, no one seems celver enough to do it.
Haven't we covered this multiple times before - we always end up with a tax on property prices because it's the only thing that can't be quickly moved abroad.
Although that does remind me why I preferred the easier solution of just taxing based on estimated property value rather than land value based taxes...
Other way round, Mr Eek. If you go for taxing the vallue of the property, you have to make a valuation of each individual property, which would take a year and a day. If you look just at the value of the site, based on its development value, you could do that in a matter of minutes...... I have a feeling that the value of the site where I live is going to be exactly the same as that of the two properties on either side of me.
My house has no particular architectural value. However next door, and most of those around me are conservation grade. Does that increase or decrease to value of my site?
Neither, I think. It all depends on what you can do with your own site. If it is in a conservation area, and you are therefore restricted in what you can do with it, then its development value is obviously less.
What does your local plan say you can do with it? That determines its value.
If a house builder has been given planning permission, then the value of the land immediately increases, as if the house had already been built. There is nothing to be gained by the housebuilder by just sitting on a site without doing the building. The value of the land is not going to increase.
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
It's relatively easy to make it illegal to marry your cousin in the UK. We already have a list of people you can't marry because of your relationship with them (e.g. siblings), we just expand that list.
We can also make it illegal to have sex with a cousin (as it is already with a sibling), but we would have to have an exemption to accommodate those who are already (perfectly legally) married to their cousins.
The real problem is that we generally recognize marriages performed anywhere around the globe, even if we wouldn't permit those people to marry (so for example, AIUI, we will usually recognize a 14 year old as legally married, if they did so in a jurisdiction which permits this) - so I suspect we'd find people who really want to marry their cousins would go off to places like Pakistan and reappear married a short time later, which puts us in a rather difficult position.
Really? Some Middle Easter countries allow marriage aged 9. Are we really saying that we would allow a 10 year old girl from such a country to come here and remain married?
Sweden has banned cousin marriage. If they can do it, so should we. And we should make it unlawful for someone to go abroad to get around such a law or state that we will not recognise such a marriage. Matthew Syed wrote a good article in the Times a while back about why banning dousing marriage was worthwhile on multiple grounds.
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
Google “cousin marriage” and “Pakistan” and prepare to be depressed. And then ask @SandyRentool about the impact of this in the UK
He is very informed and articulate on the subject
Well I know it's a problem, and I know it's mainly an Islamic problem, and that cultural behaviours from the Islamic world are overriding basic human instincts i.e. don't sleep with close family. My point is - as @theProle explains - it's very difficult in practical terms to do anything about it. Though I am startled we recognise 14 year olds as being married.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
If he wins I doubt he will do anything different to last time apart from tax cuts for the super rich. I doubt he will make the four year term. Pointless exercise. The people who support him will have been conned a second time. It would be fabulous to move on from this type of politics and get a leader and administration that improves peoples quality of life and uplifts the majority of them to feel good about themselves. keeps the economy strong. Take a u turn from this bollocks which is precisely what it is.
So a Trump administration is very likely to do something different from last time, then.
That both sides are still obsessed by McDonald, 48 hours later and to the exclusion of almost everything else, makes it one of the biggest single stories of the whole campaign.
Harris is getting out-reality-TV'ed. She needs some substance, she can't win on who's better at reality TV.
I hope Biden has been practicing his fake heart attack face, it's time to inaugurate her.
Imagine, the new American Reich got over the line by an Ed Davey style stunt.
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
The ban is Norway not Sweden, afaics. And we need to remember that Scandi countries have a terrible record on questions around fertility / reproduction - in Sweden they were doing compulsory sterilisation without consent into the late 1970s.
This issue coming up now feels more like a populist attempt to come up with a good-sounding policy that just happens, for some reason, specifically to target ethnic minorities. I can see Reform UK or the current Tory Right using it as a wedge issue.
Is there specific cost / benefit data relating to the UK? And how would such a ban be enforced?
There was a column in the Spectator last week, where the author clearly doesn't, as he had to rely on a two stage link when he came to the UK: In parts of the Middle East and North Africa, up to half of all marriages are between relatives. Pakistan, which has a significant immigrant population in the UK, has one of the highest prevalence of cousin marriages in the world. https://archive.ph/fQf6f
Because - in part - we have imported millions of people with kids who need schooling and sometimes special expensive schooling
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Well, yes, but how do you enforce this? Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
Expand the incest laws and scoop up official and unofficial marriages.
Yes but how do you prove that a couple - often, in these cases, a couple where one party has only just arrived in the country; and at best whose documentation is not what anyone in the UK would be familiar with; at worst entirely absent - are cousins?
Roll the testing into the cost of the visa. And, of course, we can always follow the example of the riots and have a few high profile convictions of people as sex offenders followed by some expulsions.
The argument is very simple. Let me spell it out for you.
1. There are a large number of people in America who have lives that suck and they see no way out 2. Trump is offering them a simplistic solution that is very unlikely to work 3. That is appealing to them so they support him 4. In order to address this the Democrats need to offer proper effective solutions 5. They are not doing this, but instead are focusing on issues that have more of a cultural edge to them (“bigoted crap” is a value judgement so not helpful) 6. Therefore the Democrats will not win
The fact that Trump is offering a different flavour of bigoted crap doesn’t disprove @another_richard’s argument. Bigoted crap is not necessarily fungible
Here is the actual post:
'Perhaps if Harris and Walz stuck to the issues instead of spouting bigoted crap they would be more likely to win.'
My response was that if that was the case Trump, who does not (contrary to your post) ever address a single issue directly but instead spouts 'bigoted crap,' would have lost.
So your argument whether simple or not is irrelevant.
If the Dems do lose we have to look elsewhere for the causes.
Harris and Walz purport to be the 'adults' and the 'nice' people.
By spouting bigoted crap they come across as little different to Trump.
Really ! Talk about false equivalence. Please give us an example of the “ bigoted crap “ .
Walz insinuating that Vance is some sort of sexual deviant - an old slur against hillbillies.
Harris proposing her 'opportunities for black men' including such things as forgivable loans and protected crypto investments.
Now lets say you're in some deprived Appalachian community, perhaps the part of Appalachia in Pennsylvania or North Carolina or Georgia - do either of these give an impression that the Dems are on your side ?
We're lucky that Harris and Walz haven't started complaining about 'deplorables' and 'low information voters'.
Vance is some sort of sexual deviant. He has a very unhealthy interest in the fertility status of every woman of childbearing age.
And appears to despise all women who are no longer fertile.
Comments
(Who chose the Telegraph as "News" website of 2024)?
Harris proposing her 'opportunities for black men' including such things as forgivable loans and protected crypto investments.
Now lets say you're in some deprived Appalachian community, perhaps the part of Appalachia in Pennsylvania or North Carolina or Georgia - do either of these give an impression that the Dems are on your side ?
We're lucky that Harris and Walz haven't started complaining about 'deplorables' and 'low information voters'.
There is no sign of either of those items as there is no magic money tree so how do we go about it?
Clinton also wasn't proposing the tax rises Harris is either on capital gains tax and corporation tax and the wealth tax she wants, although both proposed rises in the top income tax rate.
On healthcare Harris is also proposing further healthcare subsidies to expand Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA)
I’d had one gin martini
SPLOOSH
Quite mortifying. However they have yet to email me the bill so either it wasn’t actually that bad or it was SO bad they’ve had to call in architects
That is simply not sustainable.
If the choice is a bullying, transactional Trump administration with increasingly questionable democratic credentials, then many, including the EU may find a bullying, transactional Xi Jinping, with a questionable human rights record a relatively congenial figure. India, a "shithouse country" in Trumpworld is equally unlikely to come on side. The very basis for NATO begins to fall, which can allow even the brittle and unstable Putin regime some opportunities to reshape things to their advantage,
The United States, once it loses its moral claim to be the leader of the free world, will find it impossible to easily regain its influence.
Meanwhile a massive arms race breaks out or, worse, countries like Germany, follow Austria, Hungary and Slovakia and are simply subverted into compromise with the malevolent Muscovite regime. A moral collapse that leads to political collapse and eventual war.
What there should be (IHT currently only applies to 4% of estates) is a much wider net for IHT, incorporating lifetime gifts and many fewer exemptions, but a much lower rate - more like 5-10% than 40%. The current tweak for homes, which brings the threshold up to £1m for some households but not others, should also go by being incorporated into the current exempt sum.
A dynamic economy requires wealth creation and wealth creation is a lot harder to do that write about.
Parts, not all, of this country is overpriced in housing.
Those who own their homes outright tend to be on financial easy street.
One thing we should do immediately is copy Sweden and abolish cousin marriage to reduce the impact on the NHS of retarded/crippled children
It is insane we allow this
Insofar as it made any sense at all what she seemed to be saying is that this government is going to build huge numbers of new prison places to take all these extra prisoners there will be because of our plan to reduce the prison population.
While echoing the Tory policy on net migration (which was have both more and fewer migrants) I still don't quite see how it is done.
Plus of course the US would be in a trade war with the EU and China, Trump imposing massive tariffs on both if the GOP also win Congress
The Republican controlled judiciary now makes it tricky to get the kind of big ticket policies through that would give Dems some big broad brush policy wins outside the economic stuff. I seriously doubt Obamacare would get anywhere today.
It's a broken political system that favours wreckers - which sadly for the Dems the GOP got very good at even before Trump - but now are pretty open about in terms of finding ways of making government inoperable as a method to destroy it. It's very difficult to have a political system set up with the checks on what you can do, if one party decides to use those to gum up and break that system severely.
It's like if the Lords had a real veto on Commons legislation it didn't like other than finance bills, a Tory blocking majority, and tore down anything Labour proposed, even if it was something they'd normally agree with. Just because they hated the idea of a Labour government and didn't want it to fully function.
It also rather leaves the argument in the realm of 'they're the bad guys/no they're the bad guys' on which most people go on gut, perception and take their cultural 'side' rather than expect good faith policy choices and debates.
Unless you're so utterly disastrous that you willingly grasp the pearl handled revolver.
That’s before we get to the sex changes for illegal immigrant prisoners.
Replacing North Sea oil with hand car washes reduces overall productivity.
But there are productivity problems in the private sector and reasons for them.
One such being that not enough of the benefits of productivity increases are going to the workers instead of the executive oligarchy or government. And if the workers don't get any benefits from increasing productivity then they have little reason to encourage them.
What happens if targeted countries don't want to accept them? Does he just leave them in concentration camps?
A massive increase in social care and special education for kids is a major major issue
Whilst vales of individual properties could to a sufficient accuracy, if needed, just be downloaded en bloc from Zoopla for the first cut.
There is a machiavellian solution - that you get people to value their own properties, but that then becomes the CPO value - so if someone values their house at £1 for valuation purposes, the council then has a very easy and cheap way to acquire council housing. Should be noted of course that this doesn't actually address the housing shortage except at the margins - your regular reminder it is supply, not tenure, which is the main problem. Even quite bright people often don't grasp this.
Land Value is a minimum of a 10 year project and would require surveying and appeals...
So we'll look forward to productivity increases and restricted pay claims for the next few years on the railways and NHS.
No. Trump’s bigoted crap appeals to the voters. Harris/Walz’s different crap does not.
It really is that simple.
The Democrats are focusing their messaging on the wrong thing (or at least the reporting we see on here. Apologies by X, Russia and who knows who else).
There are multiple ways of the machiavellian solution - one is that mortgage companies will look at the historic valuation and go - well it's only worth x based on the 2025 valuation and local house price inflation since then
Planned expenditure on adult social care will increase by £2.1bn, to £24.5bn, in 2024-25, a rise of 9.2% after taking account of inflation; this follows an increase of £2bn (10% in real terms) in 2023-24.
Increases in budgeted costs have been even steeper for children’s social care, with a second consecutive rise of 11% in real terms, taking planned expenditure to £14.2bn in 2024-25, according to the figures from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC).
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/06/24/council-social-care-spending-up-10-in-real-terms-for-second-year-in-a-row-data-shows/
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/oct/22/coin-trove-from-time-of-norman-conquest-becomes-englands-highest-value-find
I was recently an hour late (in the UK) because my train was cancelled, and the next one was an hour later, and ran on time. The cheeky gits tried to get away with the 30-59 minute refund, and I had to appeal to get the rest of my refund. This is tbe second time something similar has happened, so SWR have obviously told their staff or the AI to try it on
Put it this way, you won’t be the first person to have dropped a glass of red wine on something. You’re probably not even the first this week.
Also concerning to me would be if by far the weakest candidate beats the stronger one again in members vote, as that would have a pattern of skin colour to the inexplicable decision.
Slightly odd that it even needs legislation - you'd have thought it would be basic common sense, and in most cases humans are hard wired not to marry their cousins. It's like passing a law to make it illegal to eat food with mold growing on it.
If the Lib Dems were second in the constituency and Jenrick is seeking Reform voters it may be a safe bet for those MPs..
Electoral Calculus already has a poll saying a Jenrick led Tory party would get a hung parliament and deprive Starmer of his majority.
A Badenoch led Tory party would also make gains but Starmer would still have a small Labour majority of 14 against her
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_hypopoll_20241017.html
Governments pass laws that earn plaudits from pressure groups, while saddling local authorities with the cost of implementing them. Eventually, the authorities go bankrupt and services are devastated, in order to prioritise parasites.
The regulator, Ofwat, is in the process of deciding how much customer bills will be allowed to rise.
In July, Ofwat provisionally agreed to allow bills to rise by an average of £19 per year between 2025 and 2030 - totalling a £94 increase, or a 21% rise, over that period.
May also never crashed the markets like Truss leading to Tory poll collapse.
Yes she was a little woke on things like modern slavery but then for those actually in modern slavery she made a difference to their lives as she did on her work for domestic violence victims. May had a moral compass.
May also won a general election, even if by less than expected and without a majority and after her dementia tax dissaster proprosals she still had enough MPs to do a deal with the DUP which is more than Rishi ever did
https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1848456115295519171?s=61
My attitude as well, and it seems @HYUFD and others see Jenrick as the one to bring back Boris and Mogg in celebration of a move to the right and winning their core vote, but you do not win elections with your core vote
Mind you @HYUFD is consistent as he does admire Farage and Trump and the right generally
To be fair they should just be honest in their beliefs and join Reform, their spiritual home
As for the rest of us, Badenoch is the only choice in a poor field to lead the challenge to Starmer and Labour
Badenoch does seem different and my wife quite warmed to her when she heard her speaking
Anyway only a few more days to wait to see if the membership can do sanity, or insanity in choosing Jenrick
In the real world elections are won on lost on leader v leader, chancellor v shadow, manifesto v manifesto, economic policy v economic policy - what you are polling doesn’t have any of that. And not to ignore the millstone the Conservatives carry into the coming General Elections, how awful they have been in government the last 4 years. once you shred reputations for economic competence and governmental competence, what a long road back it is from there. The actual question is, what brings the Lib Dem held seats the Conservatives need to form a government, what brings the voters Conservatives have lost to Reform, but need in order to form a government, back into the fold, that’s something polling at this point of the electoral cycle does not have built in.
Kemi Badenoch subtly won this at conference week. Maternity pay remarks a mistake? She is doubling down now by adding minimum wage to the burdens on existing business and preventing start ups. The trillion pound a year bill and government burdens on business is already here after 13 years of Conservative government - politicians buying favourable front pages and votes with generous offers paid not by them, but by businesses and future taxpayers - but Starmer’s woke government is only going to make the problems worse and even more obvious, which is why Badenoch is spot on with her pro business, pro productivity platform. The Party needs to move on sharpish from Boris Eff business era.
Meanwhile Jendrick’s One Dimensional platform is all in on Johnny Foreigner being a freeloading terror risk, pull up the drawbridge now before they swamp our housing and public services, take our jobs and turn England into a foreign land.
(If he was a Citizen.)
I hope Biden has been practicing his fake heart attack face, it's time to inaugurate her.
Lady Thatcher didn’t throw wets out the party, she realised how vital to put them in the cabinet and give them something to deliver.
We can also make it illegal to have sex with a cousin (as it is already with a sibling), but we would have to have an exemption to accommodate those who are already (perfectly legally) married to their cousins.
The real problem is that we generally recognize marriages performed anywhere around the globe, even if we wouldn't permit those people to marry (so for example, AIUI, we will usually recognize a 14 year old as legally married, if they did so in a jurisdiction which permits this) - so I suspect we'd find people who really want to marry their cousins would go off to places like Pakistan and reappear married a short time later, which puts us in a rather difficult position.
He is very informed and articulate on the subject
Incidentally my wife and I travelled that route last week
Mere coincidence that Musk has form with calling blameless individuals 'paedo'.
What does your local plan say you can do with it? That determines its value.
If a house builder has been given planning permission, then the value of the land immediately increases, as if the house had already been built. There is nothing to be gained by the housebuilder by just sitting on a site without doing the building. The value of the land is not going to increase.
Sweden has banned cousin marriage. If they can do it, so should we. And we should make it unlawful for someone to go abroad to get around such a law or state that we will not recognise such a marriage. Matthew Syed wrote a good article in the Times a while back about why banning dousing marriage was worthwhile on multiple grounds.
Though I am startled we recognise 14 year olds as being married.
This issue coming up now feels more like a populist attempt to come up with a good-sounding policy that just happens, for some reason, specifically to target ethnic minorities. I can see Reform UK or the current Tory Right using it as a wedge issue.
Is there specific cost / benefit data relating to the UK? And how would such a ban be enforced?
There was a column in the Spectator last week, where the author clearly doesn't, as he had to rely on a two stage link when he came to the UK:
In parts of the Middle East and North Africa, up to half of all marriages are between relatives. Pakistan, which has a significant immigrant population in the UK, has one of the highest prevalence of cousin marriages in the world.
https://archive.ph/fQf6f
In Bradford, where I was at University, less draconian interventions seem to have been effective:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918
(Don't tell the Leeanderthal Man, as he might find out that another group with high occurrence of cousin marriage are Irish Travellers:
Better coverage, The Case for Banning Cousin Marriage:
https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ojlr/rwae014/7685593
He has a very unhealthy interest in the fertility status of every woman of childbearing age.
And appears to despise all women who are no longer fertile.