The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
Badenoch was all over the place with her six questions, a scattergun approach of attempted gotchas with no theme or coherent philosophy. She said she supported the Labour spending increases on the NHS, but not the taxes needed to pay it.
I thought that she would be much better at PMQs than she is, as she is generally articulate.
I don't think she will be as bad as Truss in terms of favourability, as she lacks real power. She can only trash the Conservative Party, not a whole country.
Ed Davey was good today, just the right note of constructive opposition. He will make a good LOTO in 2029 if he plays his cards right.
The only people maintaining the fantasy that Ed Davey will become LOTO is the Liberal Democrats. There is no appetite in the country for it.
They were a convenient ejection mechanism in July 2024. Nothing more.
If the country turns against this administration then they'll be seen as obstacle the other way and the tables will turn.
Or, if the Tories haven't sorted themselves out at that point, it's Farage who's next in line, not Davey.
The vagaries of FPTP and tactical voting mean it is far from impossible that the Liberal Democrats could be fourth in terms of number of votes, and yet Ed Davey could be LoTO.
All it requires is that the Reform/Conservative vote becomes even more inefficient; I think there are another 20 or 30 Conservative seats where if the Conservatives were to lose 5 percentage points to Reform while the LibDems cut the Labour vote in half would fall to the Yellow Peril. And this excludes the possibility that Reform takes further seats frim the Conservaties.
Now, is it likely? It's not. But one only has to look at Scotland to see that extremely disproportionate results are possible.
Badenoch was all over the place with her six questions, a scattergun approach of attempted gotchas with no theme or coherent philosophy. She said she supported the Labour spending increases on the NHS, but not the taxes needed to pay it.
I thought that she would be much better at PMQs than she is, as she is generally articulate.
I don't think she will be as bad as Truss in terms of favourability, as she lacks real power. She can only trash the Conservative Party, not a whole country.
Ed Davey was good today, just the right note of constructive opposition. He will make a good LOTO in 2029 if he plays his cards right.
The only people maintaining the fantasy that Ed Davey will become LOTO is the Liberal Democrats. There is no appetite in the country for it.
They were a convenient ejection mechanism in July 2024. Nothing more.
If the country turns against this administration then they'll be seen as obstacle the other way and the tables will turn.
Or, if the Tories haven't sorted themselves out at that point, it's Farage who's next in line, not Davey.
The challenge for Farage is this: how does he focus the votes of the angry, dispossessed and light on facts into clumping which allow them to win more than a handful of votes?
He isn't even effective as party leader - his head is in Trump, not Reform.
I'm not seeing a pattern. Michael Gove at the Spectator displacing Frasier Nelson, Ross Kempsell at Guido displacing Paul Staines. Somebody explain this to me.
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
And, so, we are due for years of tireless attacks on yet another Conservative leader doing the socialists work for them just because she isn't David Cameron reincarnated.
Pathetic.
David Cameron put Andy Coulson in Number 10 and put Justin Welby in Lambeth Palace.
sums him up perfectly
Don’t forget the completion of the hat-trick, Michelle Mone in the HoL.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
Badenoch was all over the place with her six questions, a scattergun approach of attempted gotchas with no theme or coherent philosophy. She said she supported the Labour spending increases on the NHS, but not the taxes needed to pay it.
I thought that she would be much better at PMQs than she is, as she is generally articulate.
I don't think she will be as bad as Truss in terms of favourability, as she lacks real power. She can only trash the Conservative Party, not a whole country.
Ed Davey was good today, just the right note of constructive opposition. He will make a good LOTO in 2029 if he plays his cards right.
The only people maintaining the fantasy that Ed Davey will become LOTO is the Liberal Democrats. There is no appetite in the country for it.
They were a convenient ejection mechanism in July 2024. Nothing more.
If the country turns against this administration then they'll be seen as obstacle the other way and the tables will turn.
There are four years until the next election. I wouldn’t bet on or against any of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem or Reform being the largest party.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
Mostly nonsense. Most can and should use the 7 year rule and ownership sharing/partnerships. I agree there are a few who can't, and adjustments should be made for older farmers. Dyson and co should pay IHT.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
It's the ministers who have no idea. £1m is a number aimed to sound flashy to people in Hartlepool. In farming terms it's not a lot.
However awful Badenoch is and the Tories are still all over the place. And and their Brexit deal has been a shit sandwich for farmers. I still expect a drift back towards the Tories in many rural seats. Because Labour are utterly clueless on this.
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
It's a paper for left-wing snobs.
Yes - I *was* 12….
I remember the Independent when it first came out. And was genuinely independent. Didn’t last, of course.
I'm not seeing a pattern. Michael Gove at the Spectator displacing Frasier Nelson, Ross Kempsell at Guido displacing Paul Staines. Somebody explain this to me.
Don’t forget the world’s best political betting website also had a change of editor this year, although that was much sadder.
I'm not seeing a pattern. Michael Gove at the Spectator displacing Frasier Nelson, Ross Kempsell at Guido displacing Paul Staines. Somebody explain this to me.
Don’t forget the world’s best political betting website also had a change of editor this year, although that was much sadder.
And, so, we are due for years of tireless attacks on yet another Conservative leader doing the socialists work for them just because she isn't David Cameron reincarnated.
Pathetic.
David Cameron was the leader that lost me voting conservative
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
At first maybe, after her disastrous budget Truss was rated far worse by voters than Badenoch.
Badenoch also now has her first poll lead, with the Tories on 29%, Labour on 27% and Reform 19% and the LDs 11% and Greens 8% with MoreinCommon this week. As Kemi has the advantage of facing an unpopular Labour government as LOTO, not having to front an unpopular Tory government as Truss did as PM.
Kemi on -3% also has a higher net approval rating than Starmer on -25% with the pollster
Badenoch was all over the place with her six questions, a scattergun approach of attempted gotchas with no theme or coherent philosophy. She said she supported the Labour spending increases on the NHS, but not the taxes needed to pay it.
I thought that she would be much better at PMQs than she is, as she is generally articulate.
I don't think she will be as bad as Truss in terms of favourability, as she lacks real power. She can only trash the Conservative Party, not a whole country.
Ed Davey was good today, just the right note of constructive opposition. He will make a good LOTO in 2029 if he plays his cards right.
The only people maintaining the fantasy that Ed Davey will become LOTO is the Liberal Democrats. There is no appetite in the country for it.
They were a convenient ejection mechanism in July 2024. Nothing more.
If the country turns against this administration then they'll be seen as obstacle the other way and the tables will turn.
Or, if the Tories haven't sorted themselves out at that point, it's Farage who's next in line, not Davey.
The vagaries of FPTP and tactical voting mean it is far from impossible that the Liberal Democrats could be fourth in terms of number of votes, and yet Ed Davey could be LoTO.
All it requires is that the Reform/Conservative vote becomes even more inefficient; I think there are another 20 or 30 Conservative seats where if the Conservatives were to lose 5 percentage points to Reform while the LibDems cut the Labour vote in half would fall to the Yellow Peril. And this excludes the possibility that Reform takes further seats frim the Conservaties.
Now, is it likely? It's not. But one only has to look at Scotland to see that extremely disproportionate results are possible.
More likely Davey holds the balance of power in a hung parliament even if Tories well ahead of the LDs on seats and Reform well ahead of them on votes
Republicans on Wednesday elected Senator John Thune of South Dakota, their No. 2 in the chamber, to serve as majority leader in the next Congress, choosing a G.O.P. institutionalist to replace Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate’s longest-serving leader.
NY Times blog
Not all going Trump's way then.
So there is life in the GOP RINO establishment yet then, even if mainly amongst GOP Senators.
I'm not seeing a pattern. Michael Gove at the Spectator displacing Frasier Nelson, Ross Kempsell at Guido displacing Paul Staines. Somebody explain this to me.
Don’t forget the world’s best political betting website also had a change of editor this year, although that was much sadder.
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
Why would leftwing snobs want poor people to become rich? They might even, horror of horrors, start voting Conservative
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I'm sure Casino's pension is better than most public sector workers.
Such horseshit. My employer puts in just 6%. Fuck all. And that's only if I match it.
I'm sick and tired of cosseted public sector workers crying woe is me over their amazing packages.
Slash and burn them.
I'm at a loss as to who on here who argues the counterpoint to your argument has a public sector pension.
Because the only person I can think of is Foxy and his argument is that he can't recruit nurses..
To be fair, I do.
And I'm in the fortunate position of being better at earning money than spending it, so I'm personally quite relaxed about the package I get. (You would be much more likely to get me on the barracades by making my job less fun than by doing dodgy things with my salary and pension.) The trouble is, there aren't enough people like me.
The real issue isn't the current staff saying "woe is me", though that's the visible bit. It's the staff who are needed, look at the totality of pay and conditions and say "stuff that, I'd rather do something else".
Given the amount of waking time spent working, unless affordability is paramount, it’s better earning slightly less, but working in a more interesting and fulfilling job, for an employer that treats you with respect.
Badenoch was all over the place with her six questions, a scattergun approach of attempted gotchas with no theme or coherent philosophy. She said she supported the Labour spending increases on the NHS, but not the taxes needed to pay it.
I thought that she would be much better at PMQs than she is, as she is generally articulate.
I don't think she will be as bad as Truss in terms of favourability, as she lacks real power. She can only trash the Conservative Party, not a whole country.
Ed Davey was good today, just the right note of constructive opposition. He will make a good LOTO in 2029 if he plays his cards right.
The only people maintaining the fantasy that Ed Davey will become LOTO is the Liberal Democrats. There is no appetite in the country for it.
They were a convenient ejection mechanism in July 2024. Nothing more.
If the country turns against this administration then they'll be seen as obstacle the other way and the tables will turn.
Or, if the Tories haven't sorted themselves out at that point, it's Farage who's next in line, not Davey.
The vagaries of FPTP and tactical voting mean it is far from impossible that the Liberal Democrats could be fourth in terms of number of votes, and yet Ed Davey could be LoTO.
All it requires is that the Reform/Conservative vote becomes even more inefficient; I think there are another 20 or 30 Conservative seats where if the Conservatives were to lose 5 percentage points to Reform while the LibDems cut the Labour vote in half would fall to the Yellow Peril. And this excludes the possibility that Reform takes further seats frim the Conservaties.
Now, is it likely? It's not. But one only has to look at Scotland to see that extremely disproportionate results are possible.
More likely Davey holds the balance of power in a hung parliament even if Tories well ahead of the LDs on seats and Reform well ahead of them on votes
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
It's a paper for left-wing snobs.
Yes - I *was* 12….
I remember the Independent when it first came out. And was genuinely independent. Didn’t last, of course.
It used to have stunnng front-page photo-journalism back then.
For the ordinary person, if prices have near doubled on some groceries, they've had a pay freeze, they see some lay-offs, and they feel much worse off then they might answer "yes" to that regardless of what the official stats say.
They should precede that question with "do you know what a recession is?" as I'm not sure many of the public, either here or in the States, could give the standard, rather arbitrary, definition of two quarters of falling GDP.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I'm sure Casino's pension is better than most public sector workers.
Such horseshit. My employer puts in just 6%. Fuck all. And that's only if I match it.
I'm sick and tired of cosseted public sector workers crying woe is me over their amazing packages.
Slash and burn them.
I'm at a loss as to who on here who argues the counterpoint to your argument has a public sector pension.
Because the only person I can think of is Foxy and his argument is that he can't recruit nurses..
To be fair, I do.
And I'm in the fortunate position of being better at earning money than spending it, so I'm personally quite relaxed about the package I get. (You would be much more likely to get me on the barracades by making my job less fun than by doing dodgy things with my salary and pension.) The trouble is, there aren't enough people like me.
The real issue isn't the current staff saying "woe is me", though that's the visible bit. It's the staff who are needed, look at the totality of pay and conditions and say "stuff that, I'd rather do something else".
Given the amount of waking time spent working, unless affordability is paramount, it’s better earning slightly less, but working in a more interesting and fulfilling job, for an employer that treats you with respect.
Based on my survey of PB posters, most employers seem supremely relaxed with employees slacking off all day.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I'm sure Casino's pension is better than most public sector workers.
Such horseshit. My employer puts in just 6%. Fuck all. And that's only if I match it.
I'm sick and tired of cosseted public sector workers crying woe is me over their amazing packages.
Slash and burn them.
I'm at a loss as to who on here who argues the counterpoint to your argument has a public sector pension.
Because the only person I can think of is Foxy and his argument is that he can't recruit nurses..
To be fair, I do.
And I'm in the fortunate position of being better at earning money than spending it, so I'm personally quite relaxed about the package I get. (You would be much more likely to get me on the barracades by making my job less fun than by doing dodgy things with my salary and pension.) The trouble is, there aren't enough people like me.
The real issue isn't the current staff saying "woe is me", though that's the visible bit. It's the staff who are needed, look at the totality of pay and conditions and say "stuff that, I'd rather do something else".
Given the amount of waking time spent working, unless affordability is paramount, it’s better earning slightly less, but working in a more interesting and fulfilling job, for an employer that treats you with respect.
Based on my survey of PB posters, most employers seem supremely relaxed with employees slacking off all day.
On topic, Badenoch needs to get to where Theresa May was.
She can tolerate 35-40% of voters disliking her but she needs to up the positives from the low 20s to the mid 40s - converting all those don't knows.
It's do'able; it means she needs to tell better stories about herself and connect with the public.
Agreed, she's an unknown to most at the moment.
But, given the don't knows will be a disparate, mostly grumpy bunch, it would take a very skilled politician to move them all into the positive camp - by default as she becomes more known she will make as many enemies as friends. To escape this she will need political skills that she hasn't yet shown.
She also has zero policies and wants to do this airy fairy 'finding ourselves' renewal campaign that seems to mean diddly squat so far.
Being LOTO starts immediately you get into the job. Jenrick was ready, Kemi clearly wasn't.
She needs to get on the front foot fast.
Nah, Jenrick would just be spitting bile and oozing snake oil.
Badenoch is just a bit, well not very good at PMQs yet. Jenrick wasn't very good at humanity.
And Starmer was utterly shite at his first General Election debate.
Does anyone know anywhere that you can bet on a Trump third term?
I'm pretty convinced he's going to try and do it - I'd certainly like to get odds on it - but can't find it on the Exchange or at any bookie.
Today he joked in a meeting with House Republicans "I suspect I won't be running again, unless you say 'he's good, we got to figure something else".
He needs a 2/3 majority of both chambers of Congress and the states to change the 22nd amendment limiting Presidents to 2 terms. Even now he is well short of that and the GOP Senators have just elected a non MAGA majority leader too
For the ordinary person, if prices have near doubled on some groceries, they've had a pay freeze, they see some lay-offs, and they feel much worse off then they might answer "yes" to that regardless of what the official stats say.
They should precede that question with "do you know what a recession is?" as I'm not sure many of the public, either here or in the States, could give the standard, rather arbitrary, definition of two quarters of falling GDP.
A recession is when someone else loses their job, a depression is when you lose yours.
On that basis a recession can easily be that I feel worse off than I did last year - which isn't a recession but there isn't a short word for feeling worse off because your wage hasn't kept up with consumer prices
From that report, it looks like Homebase was bought and stuffed up by the new owners, possibly more than once.
Wesfarmers had bought Homebase in 2016 and immediately sacked Homebase's senior management team.
It admitted making a number of "self-induced" blunders, such as underestimating winter demand for a range of items from heaters to cleaning and storage, and dropping popular kitchen and bathroom ranges.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
A senator told me that the rumor on the Hill is that Elon Musk is threatening to fund a primary challenge to any House Republican who doesn’t fall in line with Trump’s agenda.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
A senator told me that the rumor on the Hill is that Elon Musk is threatening to fund a primary challenge to any House Republican who doesn’t fall in line with Trump’s agenda.
I wonder if Trump and Elon will be on speaking terms in a years time.
The risk then is that Elon will be funding a primary challenge to any rHouse Republican who did fall in line and didn't immediately reverse pivot...
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
A senator told me that the rumor on the Hill is that Elon Musk is threatening to fund a primary challenge to any House Republican who doesn’t fall in line with Trump’s agenda.
I wonder if Trump and Elon will be on speaking terms in a years time.
The risk then is that Elon will be funding a primary challenge to any rHouse Republican who did fall in line and didn't immediately reverse pivot...
Zeroth rule of politics is that voters don't like divided parties.
Which was the logic behind old school GOPers sucking up whatever Trump did.
My main reflection is that Starmer has got a lot better since I last watched it. He was far less wooden, much quicker on the disparaging quips that hit home (though they became a bit repetitve by the end).
Badenoch is clearly inexperienced and doesn't yet know (a) how to select a hard-hitting question or (b) how to avoid getting sucked into responding to Starmer's own response.
I suspect, as with Starmer, she'll improve over time.
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
Why would leftwing snobs want poor people to become rich? They might even, horror of horrors, start voting Conservative
Rich people have stopped voting Tory... the Lib Dems on the other hand....
In reply to various comments, I thought I might inject some reality. There is a narrow band of public sector roles in the regions (e.g. Newcastle and particularly NI) where pay is very favourable vs the market. But that’s a policy choice made by successive Governments to transfer wealth.
In general, public sector salaries are at least 20-25% less than private sector ones, representing the real value of the pension. For more senior roles (top few thousand) they are substantially lower than the private sector comparison, and rely on incumbents being part public spirited and part in search of extra job security.
Anyone wittering on about public sector pensions being too generous is, for the most part, talking utter bollocks and hasn’t noticed that the real issue is that we don’t pay enough for critical, skilled roles in the public sector.
The most stupid commentators on this compare average public and private sector pay, and conveniently forget that the lowest paid jobs all got contracted out so it’s an apples/oranges comparison.
In reply to various comments, I thought I might inject some reality. There is a narrow band of public sector roles in the regions (e.g. Newcastle and particularly NI) where pay is very favourable vs the market. But that’s a policy choice made by successive Governments to transfer wealth.
In general, public sector salaries are at least 20-25% less than private sector ones, representing the real value of the pension. For more senior roles (top few thousand) they are substantially lower than the private sector comparison, and rely on incumbents being part public spirited and part in search of extra job security.
Anyone wittering on about public sector pensions being too generous is, for the most part, talking utter bollocks and hasn’t noticed that the real issue is that we don’t pay enough for critical, skills roles in the public sector.
The most stupid commentators on this compare average public and private sector pay, and conveniently forget that the lowest paid jobs all got contracted out so it’s an apples/oranges comparison.
In Newcastle - nope
Twin A provides me with endless stories about people moving away because they can get more money from EE or even the passport agency.
And that's before HMRC announced their latest requirement for 3 days in the office (got to justify the new central Newcastle office somehow).
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
Why would leftwing snobs want poor people to become rich? They might even, horror of horrors, start voting Conservative
Rich people have stopped voting Tory... the Lib Dems on the other hand....
Which says all you need to know about the lib dems, just like when people like you claimed the rich always voted tory
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
Why would leftwing snobs want poor people to become rich? They might even, horror of horrors, start voting Conservative
Rich people have stopped voting Tory... the Lib Dems on the other hand....
In other words the Lib Dems are (or are becoming) the Tories now.
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
Why would leftwing snobs want poor people to become rich? They might even, horror of horrors, start voting Conservative
Rich people have stopped voting Tory... the Lib Dems on the other hand....
Which says all you need to know about the lib dems, just like when people like you claimed the rich always voted tory
It's been pointed out that Kemi has to resolve a pincer movement. Down south the Tories now have to compete against a resurgent Lib Dem party who are targeting Tory seats with centralist policies
Elsewhere the tories need to fight Farage / Reform who are attacking from the Right.
If the Tories focus on addressing Reform they lose votes to the Lib Dems, swing towards the centre and they lose voters to Reform... And I don't think the Tories can successfully fight both battles at the same time in a way that doesn't scare a lot of the other potential voters away.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I'm sure Casino's pension is better than most public sector workers.
Such horseshit. My employer puts in just 6%. Fuck all. And that's only if I match it.
I'm sick and tired of cosseted public sector workers crying woe is me over their amazing packages.
Slash and burn them.
I'm at a loss as to who on here who argues the counterpoint to your argument has a public sector pension.
Because the only person I can think of is Foxy and his argument is that he can't recruit nurses..
To be fair, I do.
And I'm in the fortunate position of being better at earning money than spending it, so I'm personally quite relaxed about the package I get. (You would be much more likely to get me on the barracades by making my job less fun than by doing dodgy things with my salary and pension.) The trouble is, there aren't enough people like me.
The real issue isn't the current staff saying "woe is me", though that's the visible bit. It's the staff who are needed, look at the totality of pay and conditions and say "stuff that, I'd rather do something else".
Given the amount of waking time spent working, unless affordability is paramount, it’s better earning slightly less, but working in a more interesting and fulfilling job, for an employer that treats you with respect.
Based on my survey of PB posters, most employers seem supremely relaxed with employees slacking off all day.
My current employers are not supremely relaxed with me slacking off. In fact, they're immensely demanding. Kaplan's said the kitty-litter needs changing, and Mittens is demanding scritches.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
They are gonna just love Trump's "normalcy".
Let's see how they are feeling in four years time.
The Guardian melt down over Trump, with other fellow lefties, is predictable but rather than berating Trump shouldn't their question be why and why they were so out of touch with public opinion
Were they “so out if touch” ?
Is it a “meltdown” ?
I think you’re resorting to hyperbole about a publication I suspect you don’t regularly read.
I read the Guardian daily
I'm so sorry.
It’s immensely good fun.
I remember being about 12, when I asked my father about an opinion piece, there.
In it the writer lambasted the ghastly oiks with East End accents and too much money overrunning his beloved public school. Upstarts empowered by Thatcher etc.
I asked “Shouldn’t he be happy that poor people are getting rich?”
Why would leftwing snobs want poor people to become rich? They might even, horror of horrors, start voting Conservative
Rich people have stopped voting Tory... the Lib Dems on the other hand....
In other words the Lib Dems are (or are becoming) the Tories now.
If current Lib Dem ideology and policy priorities are now Tory, then you can add me to the PB Tory list.
From that report, it looks like Homebase was bought and stuffed up by the new owners, possibly more than once.
Wesfarmers had bought Homebase in 2016 and immediately sacked Homebase's senior management team.
It admitted making a number of "self-induced" blunders, such as underestimating winter demand for a range of items from heaters to cleaning and storage, and dropping popular kitchen and bathroom ranges.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Does anyone know anywhere that you can bet on a Trump third term?
I'm pretty convinced he's going to try and do it - I'd certainly like to get odds on it - but can't find it on the Exchange or at any bookie.
Today he joked in a meeting with House Republicans "I suspect I won't be running again, unless you say 'he's good, we got to figure something else".
Zero chance. Even the Supreme Court can't wreck the Constitution to overrule term limits.
Plus he will be very, very old by then. If still alive.
I understand, but I don't know how people can look at the past decade and think there is 'zero chance' of it. It would be difficult procedurally but far from impossible.
If I had £1 for every rich person who threatens to leave this country because of a Labour government and/or the budget but doesn't actually do so, I'd have enough money to be able to afford to stay here.
He looks young enough that he will be able to suitably plan things so that his children take over and inherit without a problem...
Yeah, fuck him.
That wasn’t what I said - I said that he could do things in a way that would allow him to fulfill his desire.
But I have zero problem with agricultural land actually being owned by farmers and not being sold at 2-5 times its actual value because it’s a legal tax avoidance scheme
From that report, it looks like Homebase was bought and stuffed up by the new owners, possibly more than once.
Wesfarmers had bought Homebase in 2016 and immediately sacked Homebase's senior management team.
It admitted making a number of "self-induced" blunders, such as underestimating winter demand for a range of items from heaters to cleaning and storage, and dropping popular kitchen and bathroom ranges.
On topic, Badenoch needs to get to where Theresa May was.
She can tolerate 35-40% of voters disliking her but she needs to up the positives from the low 20s to the mid 40s - converting all those don't knows.
It's do'able; it means she needs to tell better stories about herself and connect with the public.
Agreed, she's an unknown to most at the moment.
But, given the don't knows will be a disparate, mostly grumpy bunch, it would take a very skilled politician to move them all into the positive camp - by default as she becomes more known she will make as many enemies as friends. To escape this she will need political skills that she hasn't yet shown.
She also has zero policies and wants to do this airy fairy 'finding ourselves' renewal campaign that seems to mean diddly squat so far.
Being LOTO starts immediately you get into the job. Jenrick was ready, Kemi clearly wasn't.
She needs to get on the front foot fast.
Nah, Jenrick would just be spitting bile and oozing snake oil.
Badenoch is just a bit, well not very good at PMQs yet. Jenrick wasn't very good at humanity.
None of that is an argument, just a collection of your own facile value judgements and opinions.
What is PB if it not a series of our own "facile value judgements and opinions"? One of our posters, someone who posts under the name of @Luckyguy1983, still highly rates Liz Truss, if you can believe that.
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
Boring! The votes are now in so who cares what motivated them? All I'm more interested in the ensuing mayhem that silly old Donald will wreak. Can't wait!
Does anyone know anywhere that you can bet on a Trump third term?
I'm pretty convinced he's going to try and do it - I'd certainly like to get odds on it - but can't find it on the Exchange or at any bookie.
Today he joked in a meeting with House Republicans "I suspect I won't be running again, unless you say 'he's good, we got to figure something else".
Zero chance. Even the Supreme Court can't wreck the Constitution to overrule term limits.
Plus he will be very, very old by then. If still alive.
"The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures". (National Archive)
The Dems would need to implode like the Tories in two years time for the 22nd Amendment to be overturned.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
Don't forget any farm under £3m is pretty much exempt.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
Agricultural Property Relief on IHT only went to 100% in 1992, and only came in in 1975, so the 100% relief rate is something that has only existed for just over 3 decades. If the family has had the land 375 years then the farm must have paid Estate duties at many points in its history, at varying rates.
In any case, why should farms be treated differently to any other capital intensive business when it comes to IHT?
If the land is sold to pay IHT then it will still be farmed, just by different people. Indeed it might give tenant farmers the start they need to buy the land off the Lord of the Manor.
Isn't his problem that he'd be running against Obama?
His problem is he'd be running against the US constitution.
He definitely can't repeal that clause and everyone swears an oath to uphold it.
So the US Secret Service would simply remove him and SCOTUS would have to rule him ineligible, even if it's stuffed with conservatives.
How do you enforce against him if he does it, given that SCOTUS have ruled that he cannot be prosecuted for acts carried out in his official role, and that criminal acts carried out in that context are protected by Presidential immunity?
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, but UK heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
Video showing David Coote appearing to be snorting a white powder released
The video that was already out clearly was after a kind of white line that was not on a pitch anyway.
I couldn't care less what Coote does in his time off recreationally.
I care that he is a dodgy referee who has held a grudge against a club he referees on regularly ... and has had dodgy calls in that light such as not thinking that taking out Van Dijk that ended his season in a horrific challenge is even a booking.
He has brought the game into disrepute with his on and off the pitch football related behaviour, no need to bring drugs into the conversation.
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
They are gonna just love Trump's "normalcy".
Let's see how they are feeling in four years time.
Part of the problem is that US politics legalised bribery, long ago.
They were just fine with pharma handing out hundreds of millions so that they (the politicians) would block drug price bargaining.
In a comic piece of Russian propaganda, they posted a picture of a house off an estate agents site in Monaco and claimed it was Zelensky’s.
Comic because it was so small that even a junior American congressman lives in better.
A few terms in Congress and you are a multi-millionaire, if you are smart. All legal as well. For a Senator, the skies the limit.
And this is why the attacks on Trumps actual corruption don’t work.
Even the Supreme Court can't wreck the Constitution to overrule term limits.
Why not?
If they can rule that the law doesn't apply to the President, why would the Constitution?
Polls show the public wouldn’t support a change allowing more than two terms for President . The constitution wasn’t clear on immunity but is crystal clear on term limits . I have many concerns about the next 4 years but this isn’t one of them .
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
Thank you for that. There were considerably more than the two you quoted: I'll have to go thru it and tabulate it at some point.
Video showing David Coote appearing to be snorting a white powder released
The video that was already out clearly was after a kind of white line that was not on a pitch anyway.
I couldn't care less what Coote does in his time off recreationally.
I care that he is a dodgy referee who has held a grudge against a club he referees on regularly ... and has had dodgy calls in that light such as not thinking that taking out Van Dijk that ended his season in a horrific challenge is even a booking.
He has brought the game into disrepute with his on and off the pitch football related behaviour, no need to bring drugs into the conversation.
Video showing David Coote appearing to be snorting a white powder released
The video that was already out clearly was after a kind of white line that was not on a pitch anyway.
I couldn't care less what Coote does in his time off recreationally.
I care that he is a dodgy referee who has held a grudge against a club he referees on regularly ... and has had dodgy calls in that light such as not thinking that taking out Van Dijk that ended his season in a horrific challenge is even a booking.
He has brought the game into disrepute with his on and off the pitch football related behaviour, no need to bring drugs into the conversation.
Apparently Sky and the FA do
The FA should care that he has brought the game into disrepute.
Even the Supreme Court can't wreck the Constitution to overrule term limits.
Why not?
If they can rule that the law doesn't apply to the President, why would the Constitution?
Polls show the public wouldn’t support a change allowing more than two terms for President . The constitution wasn’t clear on immunity but is crystal clear on term limits . I have many concerns about the next 4 years but this isn’t one of them .
It’s only clear that someone can’t be elected more than twice. It’s silent on other methods of becoming President.
Comments
All it requires is that the Reform/Conservative vote becomes even more inefficient; I think there are another 20 or 30 Conservative seats where if the Conservatives were to lose 5 percentage points to Reform while the LibDems cut the Labour vote in half would fall to the Yellow Peril. And this excludes the possibility that Reform takes further seats frim the Conservaties.
Now, is it likely? It's not. But one only has to look at Scotland to see that extremely disproportionate results are possible.
He isn't even effective as party leader - his head is in Trump, not Reform.
I haven't for years but always found his podcasts hard to follow as they just went all over the place. He also likes the sound of his voice too much.
I am clearly just a bit too old.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
I've been amazed at how of the work Labour has already done for them - they are pressing the bruises of almost every one of their target voter groups.
If the Blairites are advising them, they are not listening to them.
However awful Badenoch is and the Tories are still all over the place. And and their Brexit deal has been a shit sandwich for farmers. I still expect a drift back towards the Tories in many rural seats. Because Labour are utterly clueless on this.
I remember the Independent when it first came out. And was genuinely independent. Didn’t last, of course.
I'm pretty convinced he's going to try and do it - I'd certainly like to get odds on it - but can't find it on the Exchange or at any bookie.
Today he joked in a meeting with House Republicans "I suspect I won't be running again, unless you say 'he's good, we got to figure something else".
Badenoch also now has her first poll lead, with the Tories on 29%, Labour on 27% and Reform 19% and the LDs 11% and Greens 8% with MoreinCommon this week. As Kemi has the advantage of facing an unpopular Labour government as LOTO, not having to front an unpopular Tory government as Truss did as PM.
Kemi on -3% also has a higher net approval rating than Starmer on -25% with the pollster
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1856249257214239046
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1856250577883103673
Plus he will be very, very old by then. If still alive.
Trumpites were backing Rick Scott who came 3rd
Remind of the size of his majority?
Went to southport for a nice fish tea.
On that basis a recession can easily be that I feel worse off than I did last year - which isn't a recession but there isn't a short word for feeling worse off because your wage hasn't kept up with consumer prices
Wesfarmers had bought Homebase in 2016 and immediately sacked Homebase's senior management team.
It admitted making a number of "self-induced" blunders, such as underestimating winter demand for a range of items from heaters to cleaning and storage, and dropping popular kitchen and bathroom ranges.
After Hilco bought Homebase it brought in a swathe of cost-cutting measures.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624nzepd59o
https://x.com/lawindsor/status/1856730368893710624
A senator told me that the rumor on the Hill is that Elon Musk is threatening to fund a primary challenge to any House Republican who doesn’t fall in line with Trump’s agenda.
The risk then is that Elon will be funding a primary challenge to any rHouse Republican who did fall in line and didn't immediately reverse pivot...
Which was the logic behind old school GOPers sucking up whatever Trump did.
My main reflection is that Starmer has got a lot better since I last watched it. He was far less wooden, much quicker on the disparaging quips that hit home (though they became a bit repetitve by the end).
Badenoch is clearly inexperienced and doesn't yet know (a) how to select a hard-hitting question or (b) how to avoid getting sucked into responding to Starmer's own response.
I suspect, as with Starmer, she'll improve over time.
In general, public sector salaries are at least 20-25% less than private sector ones, representing the real value of the pension. For more senior roles (top few thousand) they are substantially lower than the private sector comparison, and rely on incumbents being part public spirited and part in search of extra job security.
Anyone wittering on about public sector pensions being too generous is, for the most part, talking utter bollocks and hasn’t noticed that the real issue is that we don’t pay enough for critical, skilled roles in the public sector.
The most stupid commentators on this compare average public and private sector pay, and conveniently forget that the lowest paid jobs all got contracted out so it’s an apples/oranges comparison.
sundersays.bsky.social @sundersays.bsky.social
·
13m
A first defeat on Capitol Hill for Elon Musk and his Musketeers
Twin A provides me with endless stories about people moving away because they can get more money from EE or even the passport agency.
And that's before HMRC announced their latest requirement for 3 days in the office (got to justify the new central Newcastle office somehow).
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/bha-appoints-candidate-of-outstanding-calibre-as-lord-allen-is-confirmed-as-its-next-chair-aJe8w2R3Werp/
https://archive.is/EjzC5
- I can’t believe it, but I did end up voting for Donald Trump. I made that decision when I saw JD Vance’s interview with The New York Times. He is the future of the Republican Party. I’m more voting for Vance than I am for Trump.
- I shocked myself and voted for Trump. No one tell my family. I was so impressed by JD Vance, the way he carried himself and how normal he appeared. I think I became radicalized on the men and women’s sports issue. The ad that said, “Kamala represents they/them. Trump represents you,” that was so compelling. While Trump is deranged, he represented normalcy somehow to me.
Good evening Sir, I hope you’re well.
Elsewhere the tories need to fight Farage / Reform who are attacking from the Right.
If the Tories focus on addressing Reform they lose votes to the Lib Dems, swing towards the centre and they lose voters to Reform... And I don't think the Tories can successfully fight both battles at the same time in a way that doesn't scare a lot of the other potential voters away.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
Let's see how they are feeling in four years time.
@LarrySabato
·
2h
As predicted, Trump “jokes” about running again in 2028–before he even reenters the White House.
https://x.com/LarrySabato/status/1856744126886363520
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
But I have zero problem with agricultural land actually being owned by farmers and not being sold at 2-5 times its actual value because it’s a legal tax avoidance scheme
So frigging what?
Goodbye to Homebase, hello to better managed firms who can better serve their customers and not take bad decisions that bankrupt the firm.
He definitely can't repeal that clause and everyone swears an oath to uphold it.
So the US Secret Service would simply remove him and SCOTUS would have to rule him ineligible, even if it's stuffed with conservatives.
The Dems would need to implode like the Tories in two years time for the 22nd Amendment to be overturned.
In any case, why should farms be treated differently to any other capital intensive business when it comes to IHT?
If the land is sold to pay IHT then it will still be farmed, just by different people. Indeed it might give tenant farmers the start they need to buy the land off the Lord of the Manor.
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029.
People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, but UK heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
If they can rule that the law doesn't apply to the President, why would the Constitution?
Video showing David Coote appearing to be snorting a white powder released
I couldn't care less what Coote does in his time off recreationally.
I care that he is a dodgy referee who has held a grudge against a club he referees on regularly ... and has had dodgy calls in that light such as not thinking that taking out Van Dijk that ended his season in a horrific challenge is even a booking.
He has brought the game into disrepute with his on and off the pitch football related behaviour, no need to bring drugs into the conversation.
They were just fine with pharma handing out hundreds of millions so that they (the politicians) would block drug price bargaining.
In a comic piece of Russian propaganda, they posted a picture of a house off an estate agents site in Monaco and claimed it was Zelensky’s.
Comic because it was so small that even a junior American congressman lives in better.
A few terms in Congress and you are a multi-millionaire, if you are smart. All legal as well. For a Senator, the skies the limit.
And this is why the attacks on Trumps actual corruption don’t work.
The 22nd Amendment covers that - under current rules Vance can only be president for a max of ten years.
And not because of drugs.