Someone elsewhere was asking why Euston can't be built so I went off to investigate.
And it seems there are a number of sightline restrictions which make it impossible for euston to have the tall tower blocks required to cover the costs of the project.
Got to say if something has to give - losing a sightline from the highest part of a public park seems to be a reasonable compromise if it makes cross UK transport viable...
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
With the exception of severe mental illnesses, there was no support for it within the benefits system. It was only relatively recently that conditions such as anxiety and depression became a pathway to financial support.
So are we saying anxiety shouldn’t give support?
I'm saying, show me the incentive and i'll show you the outcome.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
As noted by another poster, the idea that anxiety lets you live off the public is relatively recent.
The burden of proof should be the opposite - it should be on someone to prove conclusively that they have a cripplingly incapacitating condition, and that it somehow prevents them from being able to work. Otherwise any scammer can fake a condition with no objective symptoms and live off other people's hard work.
And, very often, for things like anxiety or stress, keeping busy by having a job is actually helpful. And if it's your job that causes you the anxiety, maybe find another one?
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.
Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Stupid (plus narcissistic sociapathic weakness desperately trying to pretend to be strength)
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
I'll make an argument in the abstract...
A nation's consumers do better with cheap(ish) home grown food. It helps keep inflation low (Particularly for the poorest) and is beneficial for the enviroment (Note if we all were vegan the cereal crops need to be grown too - so this debate doesn't really hinge on anything to do with animals). Farming is a relatively low yield activity - if farmers sold their land tomorrow and just stuck it into a global equity tracker they'd probably do better than actually farming given the costs and so forth - farming can have really bad years too - so farming probably isn't actually the very best use of a farmer's time or money. Certainly selling the farm, investing the money then doing another job would earn them more in most cases. The economics of farms depend on scale - essentially the above might not be true in a good year BUT the farm has to be above a certain size, you can't buy half a tractor for instance or half a combine harvester - both serious asset investments to be viable. The farmer's "reward" if you like is that they avoid most of the IHT that the rest of us would pay with such asset values, take this away and there's no longer the incentive to pass down the farm to generations future - you might as well sell up to "big agriculture", or you need to sell off part of your farm to pay the death duties and if this is set too low a threshold/too high a tax then farmers and their heirs might as well not bother. Whether Labour's changes push to this level is open to debate - but there's the argument in the round for lower IHT on agricultural land than regular IHT.
The quibble I have with this is the idea that UK grown food is cheaper. Isn't the price set by global markets (see Ukraine invasion), and therefore you can't really argue domestic production helps with prices.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have worked
Its also not good if sucessful, innovative farmers are unable to expand because land prices are driven up by inheritance tax rorts.
Which is why you need a targeted measure.
Saying that "All the farmers need to do, is more tax planning" ignores the following
- Tax planning is expensive - Tax panning is available to all. So those using farmland to avoid IHT can do exactly the same process.
So the measure announced will not actually raise revenue (much), but impose costs on everyone. I underhand that politicians think that increasing costs for other people is free. They need to learn that this is not so.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
As noted by another poster, the idea that anxiety lets you live off the public is relatively recent.
The burden of proof should be the opposite - it should be on someone to prove conclusively that they have a cripplingly incapacitating condition, and that it somehow prevents them from being able to work. Otherwise any scammer can fake a condition with no objective symptoms and live off other people's hard work.
And, very often, for things like anxiety or stress, keeping busy is actually helpful.
That’s what I’m asking, what proof is required to show somebody can’t work?
I took some days off but wasn’t long term sick, are you saying I shouldn’t have done that?
Keeping busy doesn’t actually resolve the underlying problem, it just delays it. This was one of the first things I learned when I went to therapy. Once I resolved the underlying problem (childhood trauma), I didn’t need to “keep myself busy” anymore.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
You can't easily save £50bn. There's a mix of unpopular and unworkable ways to do it.
Cutting farming subsidies would be incredibly unpopular in rural communities but might be possible.
Letting asylum seekers work is an excellent idea imo which would be pilloried by the right wing press. I could imagine Labour could spin it as a 'tough' move.
Getting people off incapacity benefits is something the last govt tried pretty hard at. If you start kicking off people who really are sick, you'll see the impact somewhere else in the system. E.g. they'll become homeless and you'll have to pay housing benefit.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have worked
Its also not good if sucessful, innovative farmers are unable to expand because land prices are driven up by inheritance tax rorts.
Farmers with one group exception will be able to avoid IHT by using the usual devices that others do. Using the 7 year rule and splitting/sharing/partnering ownership will do most of the work.
The exception is those already very old who will fall foul of the changes without lifespan available to plan. This needs attention.
Also why I am only at the fifteenth best hotel In the world? What’s up with the fourteenth best? Too good for the likes of me??
Another photo from a rich globalist citizen of nowhere from paradise while citizens of somewhere have to trudge to work in the dark
Much brighter and indeed sunny today. In my part of Essex, anyway, although of course I no longer have to go work, whether by trudging, driving or being driven.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
The government are going to have a hell of a job on their hands coping with a transactional President who feels none of the old ties or obligations. Its going to challenge both the major parties how they respond to that, in some ways the Tories even more so. It will be an opportunity for new thinking about our priorities, our role in the world and the risks that we face. Starmer's meeting with Macron is a start.
One of the issues we have is not just that Trump is transactional but he is confusing and unreliable too. Transactional we can make some judgement calls and it would be uncomfortable but manageable.
Add in, he says a load of different things, often with extreme hyperbole and offense, and then has a consistent history of shafting those he has transacted with and it becomes an impenetrable minefield.
Don't expect too much from Starmer or any UK politicians on this would be my advice. Ride it out and see what happens for now.
In many ways the sooner Vice President Vance takes over the better. His policy agenda is not much better but he seems a lot closer to rational than his boss.
We had those thoughts about VPs taking over for the last 8 years. I think it unlikely even though we are dealing with an ill old man.
And even if he does I am not sure we would be welcoming it. Trump's agenda is all Trump. Much of what he will do will be petty, vindictive and affect few apart from those who are unfortunate enough to be in his crosshairs - mostly not everyday public peeps.
Vance has beliefs, and ambitions for the country and the state beyond the personal. And they are ambitions that most of us, myself included, would not welcome on either a national or international level. Do you want your enemies to be incompetent, venal and incapable of enacting their agenda due to their own failings or do you want them to be competant, focused and able to realise their abhorant plans with ruthless efficiency?
An efficient, well-disciplined, Trump would be a terrifying prospect.
The hope is that he gets bogged down and obsessed by one or two big domestic priorities that don't really affect the rest of the world, and we get to carry on regardless. And that the tariffs are just a negotiating wheeze. But he has Elon Musk as his effective COO this time.
Elon as COO, maybe for a while but first, Musk and VP Vance are not aligned so there may be a power struggle there; second, Trump's ego demands the limelight but Musk likewise so there is potential conflict there; and third, Trump's first presidency had frequent sackings and resignations so why should it be different this time?
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
I'll make an argument in the abstract...
A nation's consumers do better with cheap(ish) home grown food. It helps keep inflation low (Particularly for the poorest) and is beneficial for the enviroment (Note if we all were vegan the cereal crops need to be grown too - so this debate doesn't really hinge on anything to do with animals). Farming is a relatively low yield activity - if farmers sold their land tomorrow and just stuck it into a global equity tracker they'd probably do better than actually farming given the costs and so forth - farming can have really bad years too - so farming probably isn't actually the very best use of a farmer's time or money. Certainly selling the farm, investing the money then doing another job would earn them more in most cases. The economics of farms depend on scale - essentially the above might not be true in a good year BUT the farm has to be above a certain size, you can't buy half a tractor for instance or half a combine harvester - both serious asset investments to be viable. The farmer's "reward" if you like is that they avoid most of the IHT that the rest of us would pay with such asset values, take this away and there's no longer the incentive to pass down the farm to generations future - you might as well sell up to "big agriculture", or you need to sell off part of your farm to pay the death duties and if this is set too low a threshold/too high a tax then farmers and their heirs might as well not bother. Whether Labour's changes push to this level is open to debate - but there's the argument in the round for lower IHT on agricultural land than regular IHT.
The quibble I have with this is the idea that UK grown food is cheaper. Isn't the price set by global markets (see Ukraine invasion), and therefore you can't really argue domestic production helps with prices.
The argument at the time the IHT exception was introduced was that otherwise, farms would be sold at the death of the farmer to pay the taxes. This would then result in all farm land in the UK being owned by increasingly large companies, with all farmers moving to being tenants of the agribusinesses.
Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
I think that's a little unfair. We've seen with Labour's increases to departmental spending that, had Labour been in government for the last 14 years, and all other things being equal (e.g. no debt crisis or bailout forcing a change of policy), then departmental spending would be at least £50bn higher than it is at present.
We know that the current incarnation of the Tories are willing to salami slice and put a slow squeeze on public spending and that does represent a difference between the parties. Obviously not as big a difference as many people would like, but the difference is there
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
As noted by another poster, the idea that anxiety lets you live off the public is relatively recent.
The burden of proof should be the opposite - it should be on someone to prove conclusively that they have a cripplingly incapacitating condition, and that it somehow prevents them from being able to work. Otherwise any scammer can fake a condition with no objective symptoms and live off other people's hard work.
And, very often, for things like anxiety or stress, keeping busy by having a job is actually helpful. And if it's your job that causes you the anxiety, maybe find another one?
I have anxiety and stress all the time, and I still work.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
I'll make an argument in the abstract...
A nation's consumers do better with cheap(ish) home grown food. It helps keep inflation low (Particularly for the poorest) and is beneficial for the enviroment (Note if we all were vegan the cereal crops need to be grown too - so this debate doesn't really hinge on anything to do with animals). Farming is a relatively low yield activity - if farmers sold their land tomorrow and just stuck it into a global equity tracker they'd probably do better than actually farming given the costs and so forth - farming can have really bad years too - so farming probably isn't actually the very best use of a farmer's time or money. Certainly selling the farm, investing the money then doing another job would earn them more in most cases. The economics of farms depend on scale - essentially the above might not be true in a good year BUT the farm has to be above a certain size, you can't buy half a tractor for instance or half a combine harvester - both serious asset investments to be viable. The farmer's "reward" if you like is that they avoid most of the IHT that the rest of us would pay with such asset values, take this away and there's no longer the incentive to pass down the farm to generations future - you might as well sell up to "big agriculture", or you need to sell off part of your farm to pay the death duties and if this is set too low a threshold/too high a tax then farmers and their heirs might as well not bother. Whether Labour's changes push to this level is open to debate - but there's the argument in the round for lower IHT on agricultural land than regular IHT.
The quibble I have with this is the idea that UK grown food is cheaper. Isn't the price set by global markets (see Ukraine invasion), and therefore you can't really argue domestic production helps with prices.
Sunflower oil was the big one, I assume that went up by a tonne because it's not really a crop we grow in the UK in mahoosive volume and Ukraine had so much of it. Even if the prices are the same I think you want to have as much internal agriculture as possible for food security and environmental reasons.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
As noted by another poster, the idea that anxiety lets you live off the public is relatively recent.
The burden of proof should be the opposite - it should be on someone to prove conclusively that they have a cripplingly incapacitating condition, and that it somehow prevents them from being able to work. Otherwise any scammer can fake a condition with no objective symptoms and live off other people's hard work.
And, very often, for things like anxiety or stress, keeping busy by having a job is actually helpful. And if it's your job that causes you the anxiety, maybe find another one?
I have anxiety and stress all the time, and I still work.
I agree with your points.
So do I but some people can’t.
Work wasn’t the cause of mine. Once I found out the cause, I was able to work on it and get better.
There’s not an easy solution to this. It’s not as simple as you folks are making out.
Interesting piece from @Alanbrooke for which many thanks but I'm not sure I agree. Politics has never gone away - you have a view of Labour (which I'm not sure I share) and of the Conservatives (ditto) but we have moved away from a time (if it ever existed) when the choice was between John Jackson or Jack Johnson.
The problem is peddling the old remedies (which have been tried unsuccessfully) won't work in the current world. Solutions which might have worked when the demographic structure was more like a pyramid don't work when it isn't. Throw in environmental and technological developments and it's an incredibly difficult melange of often counter-moving elements to manage and try and keep everyone happy.
I see the new term of abuse for the mid 2020s is "centrist" - I'm a centrist and proud of it inasmuch as I don't see extreme solutions as solutions at all (such solutions tend to create new problems). As I've said on here many times - the party's over and as wiser souls than I have also opined, we have really been spinning the wheels since 2008. The end of (relatively) cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values was a shock just as the first energy shock had been in the early 1970s.
We've assumed growth for decades which in turn would make us all feel richer (whether we were or not). The return of inflation frightened a lot of people but the traditional "solution" for poor growth - spending cuts and tax cuts - won't play in the current society and culture especially if the latter looks to be favouring the very wealthy disproportionately (as it always does). Fifty years of propaganda has left the very notion of basic rate tax rises anathema even though that's probably in itself no more than a short-term fix though I'd offer a basic rate of 25% and higher rate of 50% wouldn't be the end of civilisation as we know it.
If the traditional solutions don't work and the radical solutions don't work either, what then? A prolonged period of economic and societal inertia - what some call "managed decline" or do we await the coming of the next big technological change(s) - AI? - which could be economically transformative (IT was, just not in the way its proponents expected).
This opens the door for the snake oil sellers to try their hand - populism is the epitome of saying what you think your audience wants to hear (however insane, impractical or unpleasant). The really effective politicians don't chase the voters - they make the argument and wait for the voters to come to them.
All well put and I generally agree.
On being centrist (which is also where I see myself) it doesn't mean a lack of radical action, it simply means not being tied into (for example) a state versus private ideology. I'd be equally sanguine about the nationalisation of water/train companies and the privatisation of NHS delivery (remaining a universal service) as long as there was convincing evidence for these.
Blairism was pretty centrist and radical. Since 2010 we seem to have generally been scared of anything except tinkering around the edges. There were the NHS reforms, but they were badly thought through, and then Brexit occupied us until Covid. Sunak didn't seem to have any particular ideas on anything. I wait to see whether Starmer has big ideas or not.
Labour's spending rises will likely prove difficult to reverse, to create room for tax cuts, without freezing NHS and DfE pay and/or cutting jobs and capital investment.
It's where all the money is going. And I expect our debt and economic position to have deteriorated by 2029, so there will be very little room for taxcuts.
Can the Tories get elected on a platform of pruning back big state entitlements, and will they be able to follow-through on them?
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have worked
Its also not good if sucessful, innovative farmers are unable to expand because land prices are driven up by inheritance tax rorts.
Which is why you need a targeted measure.
Saying that "All the farmers need to do, is more tax planning" ignores the following
- Tax planning is expensive - Tax panning is available to all. So those using farmland to avoid IHT can do exactly the same process.
So the measure announced will not actually raise revenue (much), but impose costs on everyone. I underhand that politicians think that increasing costs for other people is free. They need to learn that this is not so.
Complicated tax planning is expensive, but using the well established routes is part of ordinary life for business and asset holders. All farmers use accountants and lawyers (rural provincial ones mostly, not Herbert Smith) and know them well. They are even now forming a long queue.
Also I strongly support asylum seekers working. But I can guarantee the response will be negative.
Anything Labour does will get attacked. Beyond not being corrupt, I can’t think of a single policy they could implement now that won’t be destroyed.
So they need to decide to be unpopular, as Mrs Thatcher and Cameron were.
You can be unpopular at the beginning, at the end or both.
My view is they are hoping to be unpopular now so they can become popular again by 2029. I can’t see what other approach they have really.
If they show progress on anything substantial, they will be rewarded in my view.
Housing is encouraging with the government calling in these applications which are liable to be refused. If they approve them all they will be starting off well.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have worked
Its also not good if sucessful, innovative farmers are unable to expand because land prices are driven up by inheritance tax rorts.
Which is why you need a targeted measure.
Saying that "All the farmers need to do, is more tax planning" ignores the following
- Tax planning is expensive - Tax panning is available to all. So those using farmland to avoid IHT can do exactly the same process.
So the measure announced will not actually raise revenue (much), but impose costs on everyone. I underhand that politicians think that increasing costs for other people is free. They need to learn that this is not so.
Complicated tax planning is expensive, but using the well established routes is part of ordinary life for business and asset holders. All farmers use accountants and lawyers (rural provincial ones mostly, not Herbert Smith) and know them well. They are even now forming a long queue.
And these noble accountants and lawyers will do the work for free? Excellent. Problem solved.
The fact remains that this change increase costs for farmers.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
I'm in favour of allowing asylum seekers to work, on the basis that I'm assuming most of them are genuinely refugees and it helps them make a good start on integrating into society and making a contribution, plus helps their mental health.
But it's worth noting that the reason they were forbidden is because the contrary assumption was made - that most of them were not genuine refugees, but have only come here to work, and so if you forbid them from working you reduce the incentive for them to travel here.
Regardless of your assumption on this the best approach is to speed up decision-making, as that allows genuine refugees to settle and join society, and allows deporting others.
Also I strongly support asylum seekers working. But I can guarantee the response will be negative.
Anything Labour does will get attacked. Beyond not being corrupt, I can’t think of a single policy they could implement now that won’t be destroyed.
So they need to decide to be unpopular, as Mrs Thatcher and Cameron were.
You can be unpopular at the beginning, at the end or both.
My view is they are hoping to be unpopular now so they can become popular again by 2029. I can’t see what other approach they have really.
If they show progress on anything substantial, they will be rewarded in my view.
Housing is encouraging with the government calling in these applications which are liable to be refused. If they approve them all they will be starting off well.
Yep - I did rather like the screams from Kent as a large application near Sittingbourne was called in 3 hours before the planning committee met to kill it (once a decision had been made it couldn't be called in until an appeal made it active again)..
The idea this government is particularly left wing is palpably ridiculous.
It is the most leftwing elected government since Wilson's
I'm not sure that broad terms like "left" and "right" help much when we're willing to talk in detail as we are here. I'd like to see more progressive taxation (including higher taxes on the top half of the 30p rate) funding higher expenditure on education, health, etc. I don't miuch care who owns the companies. The Government strikes me as slightly left of centre, but heavily constrained by its promises, so I do support it (I'm a CLP chair) but without great enthusiasm.
The Swiss IIRC impose taxation on a sliding scale which rises gently with every hundred francs. I'm not sure that our blocs of 20p/30p/40p are necessary in a computerised age.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
Also I strongly support asylum seekers working. But I can guarantee the response will be negative.
Anything Labour does will get attacked. Beyond not being corrupt, I can’t think of a single policy they could implement now that won’t be destroyed.
So they need to decide to be unpopular, as Mrs Thatcher and Cameron were.
You can be unpopular at the beginning, at the end or both.
My view is they are hoping to be unpopular now so they can become popular again by 2029. I can’t see what other approach they have really.
If they show progress on anything substantial, they will be rewarded in my view.
Housing is encouraging with the government calling in these applications which are liable to be refused. If they approve them all they will be starting off well.
I think the bar for labour is higher. People want services to get better, not reduced decline. That will be tough to achieve in just 5 years.
I'm also worried about housing. They are relying on private developers to deliver their flagship policy, and have introduced new taxes on those same developers. I'd feel more comfortable if govt were actually directly building houses themselves.
Thanks Alanbrooke for the article. I agree that politics is back, certainly its rhetoric is going to be around.
But as to tax, spend and borrow, and 'small state' the Tories have a lot of work ahead to be convincing since over 14 years they have embraced the larger and larger state and tax, spend and borrow.
The clue is is Alanbrooke's words about the small state:
They still have much thinking to do to establish viable policies
Which is fair enough. So let's start with principles. A smaller state with less spend, tax and borrow has principles about which big ticket things it stops doing and funding. Let us take 'greater efficiency and cutting waste' as a permanent item on the agenda.
What are the Tory principles about a smaller state which could possibly reduce tax, spend and borrow collectively by a very small sum, say £50 billion per annum? (About 5% of the total). The last 14 years gives not a single clue. I have no idea. Does anyone know?
I think that's a little unfair. We've seen with Labour's increases to departmental spending that, had Labour been in government for the last 14 years, and all other things being equal (e.g. no debt crisis or bailout forcing a change of policy), then departmental spending would be at least £50bn higher than it is at present.
We know that the current incarnation of the Tories are willing to salami slice and put a slow squeeze on public spending and that does represent a difference between the parties. Obviously not as big a difference as many people would like, but the difference is there
I think this amounts to the thought that Tories have tried to do all the same things but less well by cutting here and there, but without any principles about what is and what is not the state's remit. That is pragmatism, and the outcome was clear from the election result.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
You can't easily save £50bn. There's a mix of unpopular and unworkable ways to do it.
Cutting farming subsidies would be incredibly unpopular in rural communities but might be possible.
Letting asylum seekers work is an excellent idea imo which would be pilloried by the right wing press. I could imagine Labour could spin it as a 'tough' move.
Getting people off incapacity benefits is something the last govt tried pretty hard at. If you start kicking off people who really are sick, you'll see the impact somewhere else in the system. E.g. they'll become homeless and you'll have to pay housing benefit.
I note you don't mention axing foreign aid, which would get you about a quarter of the required savings and would actually be popular, at least judging by opinion polls. Anyone who still wants to contribute can give some equivalent amount of money to one of hundreds of charities instead (as I do myself).
But I agree it's difficult to cut spending immediately in a nation grown addicted to living off the state. It needs a sense of crisis and political consensus, neither of which we have. Much easier to freeze things in real terms and let them wither on the vine.
Farming subsidies however are a particularly outrageous piece of pork that should be scrapped asap. About the only sensible thing Reeves did in the otherwise disastrous budget was get rid of their ridiculous exemption from inheritance tax. Any industry that relies on subsidies and tax breaks to survive is one we should not be in. Where farmers can't compete domestically we should import the food tariff free as we did a century ago. That would not only save the public purse, but also result in lower food prices, and boost economic growth as the land, labour and capital are directed to more productive uses.
But basic economics never seems to apply in some industries, and agriculture is one of them.
The idea this government is particularly left wing is palpably ridiculous.
It is the most leftwing elected government since Wilson's
I'm not sure that broad terms like "left" and "right" help much when we're willing to talk in detail as we are here. I'd like to see more progressive taxation (including higher taxes on the top half of the 30p rate) funding higher expenditure on education, health, etc. I don't miuch care who owns the companies. The Government strikes me as slightly left of centre, but heavily constrained by its promises, so I do support it (I'm a CLP chair) but without great enthusiasm.
The Swiss IIRC impose taxation on a sliding scale which rises gently with every hundred francs. I'm not sure that our blocs of 20p/30p/40p are necessary in a computerised age.
If we want increased public expenditure then I think the broad majority need to pay more. Maybe the wealthiest pay quite a bit more but it needs to be broad based. Freezing the thresholds sort of does this but isn't enough. It would help if someone would level with the public over the increasing cost of healthcare, pensions and debt interest payments.
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
Yep, it was excellent. On the brutal, determined and efficient parts, I think aside from meticulous record keeping the Nazis weren’t quite so hot on the efficient part. The determined component I see as a boiling a frog situation; many Nazis in 1934 would be horrified or ecstatic depending on disposition on how determinedly they had carried out the rounding up of Europe’s Jews.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
But why should it not? If it’s severe enough, depression can be as debilitating as any physical disorder.
I’m not saying anyone should get a benefit for having this, I’m just saying that there must surely be a level at which it is deemed to be significant?
Or are we having a different debate which is that actually mental health is not as significant as physical health? Even though this is not as far as I know, the consensus?
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
You can't easily save £50bn. There's a mix of unpopular and unworkable ways to do it.
Cutting farming subsidies would be incredibly unpopular in rural communities but might be possible.
Letting asylum seekers work is an excellent idea imo which would be pilloried by the right wing press. I could imagine Labour could spin it as a 'tough' move.
Getting people off incapacity benefits is something the last govt tried pretty hard at. If you start kicking off people who really are sick, you'll see the impact somewhere else in the system. E.g. they'll become homeless and you'll have to pay housing benefit.
I note you don't mention axing foreign aid, which would get you about a quarter of the required savings and would actually be popular, at least judging by opinion polls. Anyone who still wants to contribute can give some equivalent amount of money to one of hundreds of charities instead (as I do myself).
But I agree it's difficult to cut spending immediately in a nation grown addicted to living off the state. It needs a sense of crisis and political consensus, neither of which we have. Much easier to freeze things in real terms and let them wither on the vine.
Farming subsidies however are a particularly outrageous piece of pork that should be scrapped asap. About the only sensible thing Reeves did in the otherwise disastrous budget was get rid of their ridiculous exemption from inheritance tax. Any industry that relies on subsidies and tax breaks to survive is one we should not be in. Where farmers can't compete domestically we should import the food tariff free as we did a century ago. That would not only save the public purse, but also result in lower food prices, and boost economic growth as the land, labour and capital are directed to more productive uses.
But basic economics never seems to apply in some industries, and agriculture is one of them.
Good luck. There are a number of decent reasons for protectionism (and regulation) in agriculture, which is why it is found across western Europe. Tinkering is needed but not abolition.
This particular time is not the greatest moment to put UK food security at risk. I think (not sure) that most voters would vote for greater domestic food security, not less. And governments know that we are always only 48 hours away from food riots.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
You can't easily save £50bn. There's a mix of unpopular and unworkable ways to do it.
Cutting farming subsidies would be incredibly unpopular in rural communities but might be possible.
Letting asylum seekers work is an excellent idea imo which would be pilloried by the right wing press. I could imagine Labour could spin it as a 'tough' move.
Getting people off incapacity benefits is something the last govt tried pretty hard at. If you start kicking off people who really are sick, you'll see the impact somewhere else in the system. E.g. they'll become homeless and you'll have to pay housing benefit.
I note you don't mention axing foreign aid, which would get you about a quarter of the required savings and would actually be popular, at least judging by opinion polls. Anyone who still wants to contribute can give some equivalent amount of money to one of hundreds of charities instead (as I do myself).
But I agree it's difficult to cut spending immediately in a nation grown addicted to living off the state. It needs a sense of crisis and political consensus, neither of which we have. Much easier to freeze things in real terms and let them wither on the vine.
Farming subsidies however are a particularly outrageous piece of pork that should be scrapped asap. About the only sensible thing Reeves did in the otherwise disastrous budget was get rid of their ridiculous exemption from inheritance tax. Any industry that relies on subsidies and tax breaks to survive is one we should not be in. Where farmers can't compete domestically we should import the food tariff free as we did a century ago. That would not only save the public purse, but also result in lower food prices, and boost economic growth as the land, labour and capital are directed to more productive uses.
But basic economics never seems to apply in some industries, and agriculture is one of them.
You absolutely could cut foreign aid it's true. Whether it's popular depends on the way you ask. The public think we should be spending more when told how much we spend, but think it should be cut generally. The downside of course is that - to take an example - millions of babies will not get vaccinated and lots will die.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
Speaking as someone who suffers from anxiety a lot I couldn't be doing with receiving any money for it. It would be a massive source of anxiety for me. Would the payments be stopped? Would I be asked to pay it back? Was I cheating?
I'd far rather if changes were made to make life in general less anxious. Security of tenure for example. Fixing the housing crisis would go quite some way to reducing anxiety.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
You can't easily save £50bn. There's a mix of unpopular and unworkable ways to do it.
Cutting farming subsidies would be incredibly unpopular in rural communities but might be possible.
Letting asylum seekers work is an excellent idea imo which would be pilloried by the right wing press. I could imagine Labour could spin it as a 'tough' move.
Getting people off incapacity benefits is something the last govt tried pretty hard at. If you start kicking off people who really are sick, you'll see the impact somewhere else in the system. E.g. they'll become homeless and you'll have to pay housing benefit.
I note you don't mention axing foreign aid, which would get you about a quarter of the required savings and would actually be popular, at least judging by opinion polls. Anyone who still wants to contribute can give some equivalent amount of money to one of hundreds of charities instead (as I do myself).
But I agree it's difficult to cut spending immediately in a nation grown addicted to living off the state. It needs a sense of crisis and political consensus, neither of which we have. Much easier to freeze things in real terms and let them wither on the vine.
Farming subsidies however are a particularly outrageous piece of pork that should be scrapped asap. About the only sensible thing Reeves did in the otherwise disastrous budget was get rid of their ridiculous exemption from inheritance tax. Any industry that relies on subsidies and tax breaks to survive is one we should not be in. Where farmers can't compete domestically we should import the food tariff free as we did a century ago. That would not only save the public purse, but also result in lower food prices, and boost economic growth as the land, labour and capital are directed to more productive uses.
But basic economics never seems to apply in some industries, and agriculture is one of them.
That is because the Labour government in 1945 took the view that domestic farming should be protected, for reasons of food security. This followed various policies, from various governments, going back to Medieval times, on the same basis.
EDIT: agricultural subsidies were the last item on the list in the free trade movement of the 90s. George Bush (the elder) actually got as farm as proposing a climb down system - free trade in agricultural between countries that removed their subsidies - before the push to free trade died. Famously, the French renaged on their promise to the UK on reviewing EU subsidies....
Employers aren't generally anxious to employ those with poor mental health. Which contributes to worse mental health. Here's an idea. How about treating it? And making reasonable adjustments?
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
You can't easily save £50bn. There's a mix of unpopular and unworkable ways to do it.
Cutting farming subsidies would be incredibly unpopular in rural communities but might be possible.
Letting asylum seekers work is an excellent idea imo which would be pilloried by the right wing press. I could imagine Labour could spin it as a 'tough' move.
Getting people off incapacity benefits is something the last govt tried pretty hard at. If you start kicking off people who really are sick, you'll see the impact somewhere else in the system. E.g. they'll become homeless and you'll have to pay housing benefit.
I note you don't mention axing foreign aid, which would get you about a quarter of the required savings and would actually be popular, at least judging by opinion polls. Anyone who still wants to contribute can give some equivalent amount of money to one of hundreds of charities instead (as I do myself).
But I agree it's difficult to cut spending immediately in a nation grown addicted to living off the state. It needs a sense of crisis and political consensus, neither of which we have. Much easier to freeze things in real terms and let them wither on the vine.
Farming subsidies however are a particularly outrageous piece of pork that should be scrapped asap. About the only sensible thing Reeves did in the otherwise disastrous budget was get rid of their ridiculous exemption from inheritance tax. Any industry that relies on subsidies and tax breaks to survive is one we should not be in. Where farmers can't compete domestically we should import the food tariff free as we did a century ago. That would not only save the public purse, but also result in lower food prices, and boost economic growth as the land, labour and capital are directed to more productive uses.
But basic economics never seems to apply in some industries, and agriculture is one of them.
You absolutely could cut foreign aid it's true. Whether it's popular depends on the way you ask. The public think we should be spending more when told how much we spend, but think it should be cut generally. The downside of course is that - to take an example - millions of babies will not get vaccinated and lots will die.
The majority will always support cuts that have no direct impact on them or their family. The minority who support foreign aid also have votes, and many feel strongly about it (me for example) and elections are won on a million votes here and a million votes there switching sides.
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
One for Kemi. Until she contemplates 'Yes Minister'. She is the one who wants radical debate and a smaller state. It will be fascinating to watch and see if she has radical courage combined with election winning ability. The auguries are not great.
I'm not sure I agree with the Header that the ideological Con/Lab battle boils down to "small state, nation first, money in pockets" versus "going after people you don't like".
Some potentially relevant news to this spending cuts discussion:
"Moscow, Russia — The Russian government is preparing for one of the most significant reductions in its civil service workforce to date. By July 1, 2025, the government will see a 10% decrease in staff, according to information obtained by Kommersant. While the 10% figure is cited as a target, the actual cuts could be even larger. In total, more than 400,000 jobs are expected to be affected, amounting to over 0.5% of the nation's workforce."
Reading the headlines this morning, it seems pretty clear that Trump will try to enact his policy platform in full.
Objectively these policies are likely to fail. Not fail at the margin, but systemically implode with unknowable political and economic consequences, and major ramifications around the world.
The implications of moving 5 million people out of the US at short notice will be extraordinarily disruptive to the domestic economy, while the tariffs now being proposed will force the EU and the UK to engage with China, whether they wish to or not.
My point is that Trump is unpopular in Britain now, so those choosing to follow his lead into irresponsible populist policy failures may be making a fatal mistake. The Conservatives would almost certainly split further under such circumstances. It is going to be a very interesting year.
Has anybody worked out exactly how these 5 million are going to be rounded up and deported, and to where?
Having just watched David Olusoga's excellent House through Time - London and Berlin series, I am struck by how difficult the brutal, determined, and efficient Nazi regime found it to round up millions of people in the 1930s and 1940s.
Hold on a cotton picking moment. When did it become problematic to deport illegal immigrants?
Logistically 5m is a lot of people
It’s not as easy as hiring a bus and turning them loose on the Mexican side of the border
No, but you make starts. One you cauterize the wound, two you divide up who you are going for. Those with a criminal record to begin with, maybe if the numbers are still too high (which says a lot in itself) you go for those who have served a custodial term. Along with that you create a mechanism for those who have been in the country for a long time with no criminal record the means the regularise their citizenry.
That has been the basis for many bipartisan immigration reform discussions since (at least) the first Obama administration. It has been regularly rejected by the GOP, and is specifically rejected by the incoming Trump administration. He campaigned on deporting precisely those people. (Though not how, precisely.)
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
Being blunt, I don't think they understand US politics - I've just looked at the remain elections and it's clear that the GOP will have a clear majority in the House..
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
It's an attention-economy and being up the uncertainty attracts more attention. There majority of people consuming the news are not able to judge its accuracy, because they are relying on the journalists to do that sort of legwork for them, but this means that shoddy/cheap/quick journalism gets more attention than accurate/expensive/slow journalism.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have worked
Its also not good if sucessful, innovative farmers are unable to expand because land prices are driven up by inheritance tax rorts.
Which is why you need a targeted measure.
Saying that "All the farmers need to do, is more tax planning" ignores the following
- Tax planning is expensive - Tax panning is available to all. So those using farmland to avoid IHT can do exactly the same process.
So the measure announced will not actually raise revenue (much), but impose costs on everyone. I underhand that politicians think that increasing costs for other people is free. They need to learn that this is not so.
Complicated tax planning is expensive, but using the well established routes is part of ordinary life for business and asset holders. All farmers use accountants and lawyers (rural provincial ones mostly, not Herbert Smith) and know them well. They are even now forming a long queue.
And these noble accountants and lawyers will do the work for free? Excellent. Problem solved.
The fact remains that this change increase costs for farmers.
Yes, but it is not massive, and in most cases will end up with a better structured outcome. FWIW I think it is right to go after those who have used the IHT exemption as a massive way of avoiding IHT for non farmers.
Generally the relationship farmers have with local lawyers and accountants is very good. The professions in the rural north bear little relation to the attitudes (and costs) of their London brethren. Don't tell anyone but some southerners use small town/rural northern lawyers and accountants for exactly this reason.
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
Being blunt, I don't think they understand US politics - I've just looked at the remain elections and it's clear that the GOP will have a clear majority in the House..
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
The idea of fixing spending on various things as % of GDP is of interest.
It would, of course, lead to a definition of GDP that would resemble actual GDP, as Donald Trumps rhetoric resembles reality.
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
Being blunt, I don't think they understand US politics - I've just looked at the remain elections and it's clear that the GOP will have a clear majority in the House..
'The Republican Party is edging closer to overall control of the US Congress, having already secured a majority in the Senate and needing three seats to take the House of Representatives.
A party needs 218 seats to win a House majority and president-elect Donald Trump's has 214, according to the latest data, compared with the Democrats' 205.'
I think even the BBC know Trump has won complete control of all branches of the Federal government and the MAGA revolution of tariffs, immigrant deportations and tax and spending and regulation cuts begins in tooth and claw in January https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c079m9mxx1no
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
Being blunt, I don't think they understand US politics - I've just looked at the remain elections and it's clear that the GOP will have a clear majority in the House..
'The Republican Party is edging closer to overall control of the US Congress, having already secured a majority in the Senate and needing three seats to take the House of Representatives.
A party needs 218 seats to win a House majority and president-elect Donald Trump's has 214, according to the latest data, compared with the Democrats' 205.'
I think even the BBC know Trump has won complete control of all branches of the Federal government and the MAGA revolution of tariffs, immigrant deportations and tax and spending and regulation cuts begins in tooth and claw in January https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c079m9mxx1no
If you look at the half counted results as they currently stand - the GOP are going to have 225 or so seats...
As with the Senate that's enough to ensure all of Trump's policies go through because there is more than enough spare votes to avoid things being voted down..
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have worked
Its also not good if sucessful, innovative farmers are unable to expand because land prices are driven up by inheritance tax rorts.
Which is why you need a targeted measure.
Saying that "All the farmers need to do, is more tax planning" ignores the following
- Tax planning is expensive - Tax panning is available to all. So those using farmland to avoid IHT can do exactly the same process.
So the measure announced will not actually raise revenue (much), but impose costs on everyone. I underhand that politicians think that increasing costs for other people is free. They need to learn that this is not so.
Complicated tax planning is expensive, but using the well established routes is part of ordinary life for business and asset holders. All farmers use accountants and lawyers (rural provincial ones mostly, not Herbert Smith) and know them well. They are even now forming a long queue.
And these noble accountants and lawyers will do the work for free? Excellent. Problem solved.
The fact remains that this change increase costs for farmers.
Yes, but it is not massive, and in most cases will end up with a better structured outcome. FWIW I think it is right to go after those who have used the IHT exemption as a massive way of avoiding IHT for non farmers.
Generally the relationship farmers have with local lawyers and accountants is very good. The professions in the rural north bear little relation to the attitudes (and costs) of their London brethren. Don't tell anyone but some southerners use small town/rural northern lawyers and accountants for exactly this reason.
Not massive? It's multiple thousands of pounds, probably.
Several of the servants to servants, downstairs, would complain bitterly at that. I would never hear the end of it from the deputy butler, who handles that end of things. It was bad enough when the car taxes were rearranged and one of the junior footmen had to sell his third best Rolls Royce....
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes - the article makes clear the Democrat was male).
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
The BBC didn't call the EU Referendum for Leave until 5am. I think Betfair called it around 2:30.
There is a hilarious thread on Reddit, where people are seeing calling the American election early as a sign of some evil interference (how could they know?). And people gently explaining how the early results told the story.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
Being blunt, I don't think they understand US politics - I've just looked at the remain elections and it's clear that the GOP will have a clear majority in the House..
'The Republican Party is edging closer to overall control of the US Congress, having already secured a majority in the Senate and needing three seats to take the House of Representatives.
A party needs 218 seats to win a House majority and president-elect Donald Trump's has 214, according to the latest data, compared with the Democrats' 205.'
I think even the BBC know Trump has won complete control of all branches of the Federal government and the MAGA revolution of tariffs, immigrant deportations and tax and spending and regulation cuts begins in tooth and claw in January https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c079m9mxx1no
If you look at the half counted results as they currently stand - the GOP are going to have 225 or so seats...
As with the Senate that's enough to ensure all of Trump's policies go through because there is more than enough spare votes to avoid things being voted down..
And a good thing too, Trump and the GOP need to own all they are about to do for the next 2 years until the midterms at least. They cannot have any excuse that one chamber of Congress was still Democrat controlled and could block their agenda
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
Being blunt, I don't think they understand US politics - I've just looked at the remain elections and it's clear that the GOP will have a clear majority in the House..
Likely to have a small majority but still not certain. DDHQ has it as 216-209 called, with the remaining projected to split 4-6 for a majority of 5.
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
It's an attention-economy and being up the uncertainty attracts more attention. There majority of people consuming the news are not able to judge its accuracy, because they are relying on the journalists to do that sort of legwork for them, but this means that shoddy/cheap/quick journalism gets more attention than accurate/expensive/slow journalism.
I don't know how to fix it.
The other factor - and this was clear with the US networks on Tuesday night - is that they don't want to admit it until they're forced to.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes).
It is a fair enough question. After all, he is deeply unsafe in taxis, proud of being a cheap chisler and he did ask pretty forcefully if he could overturn his 2020 defeat. In short, he's not a nice man to have as a leader of a nation.
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
Well thats the point isn't it? If you can't prove someone is faking it, then some people will abuse the system and fake it.
We had a (much hated) colleague here who had a mental breakdown for a year at the same time as he built an extension. He has just recently taken a retirement package after another breakdown - two years off with stress then paid off, thanks very much.
I cannot know if his case was genuine or not. Or is genuine to some extent but abused a bit. Or totally fake. There is no way to know.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
Speaking as someone who suffers from anxiety a lot I couldn't be doing with receiving any money for it. It would be a massive source of anxiety for me. Would the payments be stopped? Would I be asked to pay it back? Was I cheating?
I'd far rather if changes were made to make life in general less anxious. Security of tenure for example. Fixing the housing crisis would go quite some way to reducing anxiety.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have worked
Like that would have had a different reaction though?
The IHT debate I’m afraid is silly, it’s people get wound up about a tax they won’t pay, that the wealthy like me pay. I don’t have an issue paying it, why should I?
It’s the knock on consequences
If the tax liability forces the sale of a company to private equity that sacks all the employees and sells the brand to a foreign company is the country better off?
That’s why exemptions exist even though they may not appear to be “fair”. It’s because the interests of the company are more important
I love Jezza but he literally bought a farm to avoid IHT. Do you think that’s justifiable?
If it is a proper operating farm then fine. If it is an “amenity farm” then more sceptical. At the moment I think the definition is a couple of hundred acres (not sure) but you can change that definition.
The problem fundamentally is that we need to raise taxes but Labour are screwed. See the reaction on the taxes they have raised.
The Tories raised taxes and gutted public services at the same time. Are people seriously saying that arrangement was a good outcome for anyone?
Thing is there is always sound and fury at budgets, but lets see what happens in 6 months and a year etc. No-one particularly likes to pay more tax (if you do, feel free to donate to the exchequer). But you are right - we need to pay for the services we want.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
Well thats the point isn't it? If you can't prove someone is faking it, then some people will abuse the system and fake it.
We had a (much hated) colleague here who had a mental breakdown for a year at the same time as he built an extension. He has just recently taken a retirement package after another breakdown - two years off with stress then paid off, thanks very much.
I cannot know if his case was genuine or not. Or is genuine to some extent but abused a bit. Or totally fake. There is no way to know.
But I have suspicions.
Well you either don’t provide anything and problem solved or you have some barrier of proof that you have to meet and if anyone falls through the cracks it’s just too bad?
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
The best thing any government could do for its people would be an outright ban on shite food. Obviously, Big Food would go bust, millions would lose their jobs, millions more would starve and society would go full Walking Dead.... Still, governments should nudge and cajole people and more importantly Big Food, into doing the right thing.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
Read up on the Vitality scheme.
That's what my thinking is based on. I'm not idealogically wedded to the current NHS model at all, other than we shouldn't through the baby out with the bath water and end up with the US system.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
I'm under 25 BMI with a 32 inch waist, but that 1:45 if half (marathon) beats my best! Just goes to show, I guess, that body shape etc is not the same as fitness (90kg is a good 8kg+ on me and I'm 183cm/6ft so not a midget).
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
The problem with the current right wing debate is that they constantly say Labour can’t find the money for their policies.
So when they do find the money, they say “not like that”!
I am still yet to hear a single reason the previous IHT arrangement for farmers was fair beyond “Labour bad”.
Farms are like businesses. It is not good for the economy as a whole if they are split up / required to be sold to pay taxes. That’s not the same as protecting “amenity farmers” but I would have thought a more precisely targeted measure would have worked
Its also not good if sucessful, innovative farmers are unable to expand because land prices are driven up by inheritance tax rorts.
Which is why you need a targeted measure.
Saying that "All the farmers need to do, is more tax planning" ignores the following
- Tax planning is expensive - Tax panning is available to all. So those using farmland to avoid IHT can do exactly the same process.
So the measure announced will not actually raise revenue (much), but impose costs on everyone. I underhand that politicians think that increasing costs for other people is free. They need to learn that this is not so.
Complicated tax planning is expensive, but using the well established routes is part of ordinary life for business and asset holders. All farmers use accountants and lawyers (rural provincial ones mostly, not Herbert Smith) and know them well. They are even now forming a long queue.
And these noble accountants and lawyers will do the work for free? Excellent. Problem solved.
The fact remains that this change increase costs for farmers.
Yes, but it is not massive, and in most cases will end up with a better structured outcome. FWIW I think it is right to go after those who have used the IHT exemption as a massive way of avoiding IHT for non farmers.
Generally the relationship farmers have with local lawyers and accountants is very good. The professions in the rural north bear little relation to the attitudes (and costs) of their London brethren. Don't tell anyone but some southerners use small town/rural northern lawyers and accountants for exactly this reason.
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes).
It is a fair enough question. After all, he is deeply unsafe in taxis, proud of being a cheap chisler and he did ask pretty forcefully if he could overturn his 2020 defeat. In short, he's not a nice man to have as a leader of a nation.
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
From actually reading the conversations that various journalists have had with people, it seems more to do with Trump expressing interest in areas that concern people - see the reading out of staple goods prices, at one rally.
Harris seemed to abandon the economic policy to Trump. Why id she not campaign on the basis of the Biden industrial support/pump priming stuff? Why no huge ads on "Chip making coming back to America?"
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
Being blunt, I don't think they understand US politics - I've just looked at the remain elections and it's clear that the GOP will have a clear majority in the House..
Likely to have a small majority but still not certain. DDHQ has it as 216-209 called, with the remaining projected to split 4-6 for a majority of 5.
If he really deports 10m people in Q1 I suspect that will be a Dem majority before Q2.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
Read up on the Vitality scheme.
That's what my thinking is based on. I'm not idealogically wedded to the current NHS model at all, other than we shouldn't through the baby out with the bath water and end up with the US system.
No reason that the NHS couldn't run a Vitality scheme. If everyone in the family does x amount of exercise per week, free cinema tickets (or something).
When Vitality did that, it reached even the people in the office who would say "I don't exercise on principle, apart from walking the dog". They were going out for walks at lunch time, to get the numbers up.... Then I suggested getting off the Tube x stops early (for others - I way already way past the exercise level Vitality was asking for). Which turned into a morning walking club - meet at a coffee shop and walk a mile together....
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
Speaking as someone who suffers from anxiety a lot I couldn't be doing with receiving any money for it. It would be a massive source of anxiety for me. Would the payments be stopped? Would I be asked to pay it back? Was I cheating?
I'd far rather if changes were made to make life in general less anxious. Security of tenure for example. Fixing the housing crisis would go quite some way to reducing anxiety.
You live in Ireland right?
Aren’t the 3Fs a bit 19th century?
I think we often get blinded by all the technological and superficial organisational change, and lose sight of the fact that the problems (and opportunities!) capitalism creates are the same ones they ever have been.
The one problem that's new is the demographic transition.
Everything else you would expect to find an echo in the 19th century.
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
You can't easily save £50bn. There's a mix of unpopular and unworkable ways to do it.
Cutting farming subsidies would be incredibly unpopular in rural communities but might be possible.
Letting asylum seekers work is an excellent idea imo which would be pilloried by the right wing press. I could imagine Labour could spin it as a 'tough' move.
Getting people off incapacity benefits is something the last govt tried pretty hard at. If you start kicking off people who really are sick, you'll see the impact somewhere else in the system. E.g. they'll become homeless and you'll have to pay housing benefit.
I note you don't mention axing foreign aid, which would get you about a quarter of the required savings and would actually be popular, at least judging by opinion polls. Anyone who still wants to contribute can give some equivalent amount of money to one of hundreds of charities instead (as I do myself).
But I agree it's difficult to cut spending immediately in a nation grown addicted to living off the state. It needs a sense of crisis and political consensus, neither of which we have. Much easier to freeze things in real terms and let them wither on the vine.
Farming subsidies however are a particularly outrageous piece of pork that should be scrapped asap. About the only sensible thing Reeves did in the otherwise disastrous budget was get rid of their ridiculous exemption from inheritance tax. Any industry that relies on subsidies and tax breaks to survive is one we should not be in. Where farmers can't compete domestically we should import the food tariff free as we did a century ago. That would not only save the public purse, but also result in lower food prices, and boost economic growth as the land, labour and capital are directed to more productive uses.
But basic economics never seems to apply in some industries, and agriculture is one of them.
I'm unenthusiastic about subsidising domestic agriculture too, but climate change predictions and the possibility of global transport disruption give me pause about moving towards total dependence on imports. We're already heavily dependent on imports but wouldn't actually starve if we were unable to import.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
Yeah a 37inch waist is maybe 33 BMI for me. Weird mix.
Trouble is BMI doesn't work at the extremes, and subcutaneous fat is a better measure for heart disease etc. I took the measurements off Diabetes UK.
I think the single waist measurement is a simplification of the waist-to-height ratio. Under 0.5 seems to be the target there, so 37" is slightly generous for the average British man, who is ~5'10", or 70".
Paraphrasing the article: "I went to the America to find out why people support Trump. I met some people who seemed nice - but they supported Trump! I was so shocked I asked my nice Democrat friend why they were so wrong"
Who does the 'they' in that last sentence refer to please?
Good morning, everyone.
The nice Trump supporters. (Witness the increased confusion the use of they for singular individuals causes).
It is a fair enough question. After all, he is deeply unsafe in taxis, proud of being a cheap chisler and he did ask pretty forcefully if he could overturn his 2020 defeat. In short, he's not a nice man to have as a leader of a nation.
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
But she claims to go to America to find out why that is - what makes "nice" Trump supporters tick. She finds some nice people and finding they are Trump supporters is so awful to her she cannot speak. Her Dem friend then goes on to explain why all the things Trump supporters want are not valid reasons, and the supporters are just Wrong.
“It drives me crazy,” Skardon [The Democrat] said. “Seriously, you have no idea how many people are fired up about transgender children playing sports. There’s literally a yard sign by my house that says ‘Save Girls Sports, Vote Trump’.”
Not saying whether I agree one way or the other - but to Skardon having this opinion is not valid, The Voters Are Wrong.
On anxiety, I think if you have crippling levels of anxiety to the point you can't work then that *could* be a factor in determining out of work benefits (And that's a whole debate in itself) but should you get an extra 5k a year because you're anxious doing a 50k job ? No. There's plenty of people that work with anxiety who work. I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
You can get an extra 5K a year because you work with anxiety? Is that a recent change as I certainly did not have that but it was a few years ago.
I have no idea ! Aren't some benefits conferred regardless of income such as disability though ? I don't think anxiety should confer the same benefit.
The two biggest areas of government spending are welfare and healthcare.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
A double lock would save very little, and ultimately be unsustainable. You'd need to pull it back to wages only.
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
{Vitality has entered the chat}
Oh, and a £100 tax rebate for anyone with a BMI below 25 or waist below 37/32 (men/women) inches.
I'm packing a bit too much at the moment but waist under 37 inches is MILES easier than a sub 25 BMI for me. Fittest I've been in recent times was 90 Kg and a 1:45 half time.
74 kg and 23 BMI for me - where is my £100?
Can you please change your username to "Irritatingly Slim"
I often post on here my suggestions for reducing public spending by £50 billion (farming subsidies, foreign aid, etc.). Here is another one. We currently spend £4 billion/year housing asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants while their cases are being reviewed, when they are generally not allowed to work until they've been here 12 months.
If we allow them to work while their claims are being dealt with, as we used to and many other countries do, not only would it save most of the £4 billion, but it would boost tax revenue and consumption in the economy.
Getting people off incapacity benefits for easily-faked stuff like anxiety or stress is another way to boost revenue and cut spending at the same time.
How do you conclusively prove somebody is faking “anxiety”, a disorder for example I was diagnosed with by a professional. Is that the boundary for which we require it?
Well thats the point isn't it? If you can't prove someone is faking it, then some people will abuse the system and fake it.
We had a (much hated) colleague here who had a mental breakdown for a year at the same time as he built an extension. He has just recently taken a retirement package after another breakdown - two years off with stress then paid off, thanks very much.
I cannot know if his case was genuine or not. Or is genuine to some extent but abused a bit. Or totally fake. There is no way to know.
But I have suspicions.
Statutory sick pay is like £115/week? Anything on top of that is your employer being generous I think. If he was much hated then easy to believe the stress!
Comments
And it seems there are a number of sightline restrictions which make it impossible for euston to have the tall tower blocks required to cover the costs of the project.
Got to say if something has to give - losing a sightline from the highest part of a public park seems to be a reasonable compromise if it makes cross UK transport viable...
The burden of proof should be the opposite - it should be on someone to prove conclusively that they have a cripplingly incapacitating condition, and that it somehow prevents them from being able to work. Otherwise any scammer can fake a condition with no objective symptoms and live off other people's hard work.
And, very often, for things like anxiety or stress, keeping busy by having a job is actually helpful. And if it's your job that causes you the anxiety, maybe find another one?
The Tories raised taxes and gutted public services at the same time. Are people seriously saying that arrangement was a good outcome for anyone?
Especially now they’ve brought the £100 bottle of rose
This hotel is outstanding
Saying that "All the farmers need to do, is more tax planning" ignores the following
- Tax planning is expensive
- Tax panning is available to all. So those using farmland to avoid IHT can do exactly the same process.
So the measure announced will not actually raise revenue (much), but impose costs on everyone. I underhand that politicians think that increasing costs for other people is free. They need to learn that this is not so.
I took some days off but wasn’t long term sick, are you saying I shouldn’t have done that?
Keeping busy doesn’t actually resolve the underlying problem, it just delays it. This was one of the first things I learned when I went to therapy. Once I resolved the underlying problem (childhood trauma), I didn’t need to “keep myself busy” anymore.
Cutting farming subsidies would be incredibly unpopular in rural communities but might be possible.
Letting asylum seekers work is an excellent idea imo which would be pilloried by the right wing press. I could imagine Labour could spin it as a 'tough' move.
Getting people off incapacity benefits is something the last govt tried pretty hard at. If you start kicking off people who really are sick, you'll see the impact somewhere else in the system. E.g. they'll become homeless and you'll have to pay housing benefit.
The exception is those already very old who will fall foul of the changes without lifespan available to plan. This needs attention.
We know that the current incarnation of the Tories are willing to salami slice and put a slow squeeze on public spending and that does represent a difference between the parties. Obviously not as big a difference as many people would like, but the difference is there
Anything Labour does will get attacked. Beyond not being corrupt, I can’t think of a single policy they could implement now that won’t be destroyed.
So they need to decide to be unpopular, as Mrs Thatcher and Cameron were.
I agree with your points.
Work wasn’t the cause of mine. Once I found out the cause, I was able to work on it and get better.
There’s not an easy solution to this. It’s not as simple as you folks are making out.
On being centrist (which is also where I see myself) it doesn't mean a lack of radical action, it simply means not being tied into (for example) a state versus private ideology. I'd be equally sanguine about the nationalisation of water/train companies and the privatisation of NHS delivery (remaining a universal service) as long as there was convincing evidence for these.
Blairism was pretty centrist and radical. Since 2010 we seem to have generally been scared of anything except tinkering around the edges. There were the NHS reforms, but they were badly thought through, and then Brexit occupied us until Covid. Sunak didn't seem to have any particular ideas on anything. I wait to see whether Starmer has big ideas or not.
It's where all the money is going. And I expect our debt and economic position to have deteriorated by 2029, so there will be very little room for taxcuts.
Can the Tories get elected on a platform of pruning back big state entitlements, and will they be able to follow-through on them?
On both counts, I doubt it.
I have no idea how it all works for poor mental health/anxiety.
If they show progress on anything substantial, they will be rewarded in my view.
Housing is encouraging with the government calling in these applications which are liable to be refused. If they approve them all they will be starting off well.
The fact remains that this change increase costs for farmers.
But it's worth noting that the reason they were forbidden is because the contrary assumption was made - that most of them were not genuine refugees, but have only come here to work, and so if you forbid them from working you reduce the incentive for them to travel here.
Regardless of your assumption on this the best approach is to speed up decision-making, as that allows genuine refugees to settle and join society, and allows deporting others.
The Swiss IIRC impose taxation on a sliding scale which rises gently with every hundred francs. I'm not sure that our blocs of 20p/30p/40p are necessary in a computerised age.
I'm also worried about housing. They are relying on private developers to deliver their flagship policy, and have introduced new taxes on those same developers. I'd feel more comfortable if govt were actually directly building houses themselves.
But I agree it's difficult to cut spending immediately in a nation grown addicted to living off the state. It needs a sense of crisis and political consensus, neither of which we have. Much easier to freeze things in real terms and let them wither on the vine.
Farming subsidies however are a particularly outrageous piece of pork that should be scrapped asap. About the only sensible thing Reeves did in the otherwise disastrous budget was get rid of their ridiculous exemption from inheritance tax. Any industry that relies on subsidies and tax breaks to survive is one we should not be in. Where farmers can't compete domestically we should import the food tariff free as we did a century ago. That would not only save the public purse, but also result in lower food prices, and boost economic growth as the land, labour and capital are directed to more productive uses.
But basic economics never seems to apply in some industries, and agriculture is one of them.
How would someone rank the top twenty hotels in the world - is that based on tripadvisor or something?
On the brutal, determined and efficient parts, I think aside from meticulous record keeping the Nazis weren’t quite so hot on the efficient part. The determined component I see as a boiling a frog situation; many Nazis in 1934 would be horrified or ecstatic depending on disposition on how determinedly they had carried out the rounding up of Europe’s Jews.
Those are the areas that need to be qualified I'm afraid. An end to the triple-lock for the double-lock, disability and mental health benefits to be bounded and more limited, and more of the risk on healthcare conditions needs to be shared with the individual and not just the State.
Politicians need to have the courage to start a debate and put these arguments forward.
I’m not saying anyone should get a benefit for having this, I’m just saying that there must surely be a level at which it is deemed to be significant?
Or are we having a different debate which is that actually mental health is not as significant as physical health? Even though this is not as far as I know, the consensus?
This particular time is not the greatest moment to put UK food security at risk. I think (not sure) that most voters would vote for greater domestic food security, not less. And governments know that we are always only 48 hours away from food riots.
The downside of course is that - to take an example - millions of babies will not get vaccinated and lots will die.
I'd far rather if changes were made to make life in general less anxious. Security of tenure for example. Fixing the housing crisis would go quite some way to reducing anxiety.
EDIT: agricultural subsidies were the last item on the list in the free trade movement of the 90s. George Bush (the elder) actually got as farm as proposing a climb down system - free trade in agricultural between countries that removed their subsidies - before the push to free trade died. Famously, the French renaged on their promise to the UK on reviewing EU subsidies....
Which contributes to worse mental health.
Here's an idea. How about treating it?
And making reasonable adjustments?
Yeah, but it doesn't, does it? The Republicans will win it.
Do any journalists have any basic grip of numbers these days?
Good morning, everyone.
"Moscow, Russia — The Russian government is preparing for one of the most significant reductions in its civil service workforce to date. By July 1, 2025, the government will see a 10% decrease in staff, according to information obtained by Kommersant. While the 10% figure is cited as a target, the actual cuts could be even larger. In total, more than 400,000 jobs are expected to be affected, amounting to over 0.5% of the nation's workforce."
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1855850812909707477
On healthcare, I agree. But I think you need to accept that the NHS isn't going anywhere, so you need a robust Public Health regime to make up for the Moral Hazard. I'd freeze secondary care in real terms and boost spending on primary care, then fix NHS spending at 12% of GDP. Tax crap food, abolish VAT on bicycles and running kit.
I don't know how to fix it.
Generally the relationship farmers have with local lawyers and accountants is very good. The professions in the rural north bear little relation to the attitudes (and costs) of their London brethren. Don't tell anyone but some southerners use small town/rural northern lawyers and accountants for exactly this reason.
It would, of course, lead to a definition of GDP that would resemble actual GDP, as Donald Trumps rhetoric resembles reality.
A party needs 218 seats to win a House majority and president-elect Donald Trump's has 214, according to the latest data, compared with the Democrats' 205.'
I think even the BBC know Trump has won complete control of all branches of the Federal government and the MAGA revolution of tariffs, immigrant deportations and tax and spending and regulation cuts begins in tooth and claw in January
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c079m9mxx1no
As with the Senate that's enough to ensure all of Trump's policies go through because there is more than enough spare votes to avoid things being voted down..
Several of the servants to servants, downstairs, would complain bitterly at that. I would never hear the end of it from the deputy butler, who handles that end of things. It was bad enough when the car taxes were rearranged and one of the junior footmen had to sell his third best Rolls Royce....
And yet here we are. Nice people voting for a man they would blackball from their country club. It's something that needs to be understood. One theory is the "they voted for the bad guy because the alternative was worse"; a sort of Johnson-Corbyn scenario. Another is that it was a desperate roll of the dice, because things were so awful, see 1930s Europe. But neither of those really rings true. Or does it?
We had a (much hated) colleague here who had a mental breakdown for a year at the same time as he built an extension. He has just recently taken a retirement package after another breakdown - two years off with stress then paid off, thanks very much.
I cannot know if his case was genuine or not. Or is genuine to some extent but abused a bit. Or totally fake. There is no way to know.
But I have suspicions.
Aren’t the 3Fs a bit 19th century?
What would you advocate?
Still, governments should nudge and cajole people and more importantly Big Food, into doing the right thing.
Harris seemed to abandon the economic policy to Trump. Why id she not campaign on the basis of the Biden industrial support/pump priming stuff? Why no huge ads on "Chip making coming back to America?"
When Vitality did that, it reached even the people in the office who would say "I don't exercise on principle, apart from walking the dog". They were going out for walks at lunch time, to get the numbers up.... Then I suggested getting off the Tube x stops early (for others - I way already way past the exercise level Vitality was asking for). Which turned into a morning walking club - meet at a coffee shop and walk a mile together....
The one problem that's new is the demographic transition.
Everything else you would expect to find an echo in the 19th century.
Either way, I have some way to go.
“It drives me crazy,” Skardon [The Democrat] said. “Seriously, you have no idea how many people are fired up about transgender children playing sports. There’s literally a yard sign by my house that says ‘Save Girls Sports, Vote Trump’.”
Not saying whether I agree one way or the other - but to Skardon having this opinion is not valid, The Voters Are Wrong.
https://www.politico.eu/article/6-takeaways-on-britain-uk-shock-vote-brexit-leave-eu-referendum-david-cameron-nigel-farage/