I note the Tories have also not put a target on what immigration should be or when they’d cut the boat crossings by. Presumably, wisely learning from their past mistakes.
Pleased to see Cooper avoiding that. Promising things that are to a large extent outside your control is a mug's game.
By definition, immigration is in the controlling hands of the government. It can issue 0 visas or 1m. What is this ludicrous idea that Britain is the passive victim of global migration flows?! It’s pathetic. We have the choice
Leon we only have the choice if we can increase our birthrate. Yet mention anything that might increase our birthrate such as horror lower property prices or horror perhaps not prioritising females in the workplace and you get massive pushback. So we are where we are. If we reduced immigration massively our economy would basically collapse.
No it wouldn’t. The robots are coming
I’ve heard of two jobs in my social circle being replaced by machines this last month
It’s begun
To be fair we are a way off robots being able to work in care homes.
Depends on the task. Most people are unaware of the huge strides in robotics
Oh ive seen the tesla robots. But driverless cars were promised by now and outside certain niches still hasnt materialised.
We just had a big PB debate on this
Driverless cars are finally taking off. In SF, Waymo are now equal with Lyft and are beginning to eat Uber’s lunch. Soon they will dominate
Dominating the taxi sector is different to dominating the vehicular sector altogether.
Even if they dominate, there is no reason why taxis will replace ownership.
There's no reason why people can't or won't own their own driverless car. Having your own automated vehicle rather than relying upon other people's still enables all the creature comforts that allows people to adapt their own vehicle as they like it rather than relying upon other people's.
Sure, but it will just be you. With your very own driverless car proudly parked outside your redbrick Barratt home semi in Newent
Everyone else will think Fuck it I can save £1000s by just ordering up an autonomous electric car as and when - to use for an hour or a day or a month - why do I need this stupid thing cluttering up my drive when I can have flowers and stuff, and half the time it just sits there, depreciating
As always it’s trade off between cost and convenience.
As a single man of a certain age, it’s doesn’t really matter when the car arrives. You can order it at the last minute and if it falls through you can use a different provider (really thinking about uber as an analogy) or an alternative mode of transport
If you have a family with 3 kids under 8, organised chaos is the best description. It’s easier to pack the car the night before and then you go whenever everyone is ready and lined up and hadn’t forgotten teddy. You need that car but you don’t know when you are going to need it.
They will be self drive for the reasons adduced: safety above all (esp with kids)
A news report this minute flashed on my phone: 2 year old child killed in London in hit and run with a Porsche. Imagine a world where that does not happen, indeed cannot happen. Vastly superior
So self drive will take over. Once that is accepted then the need to own a car becomes much less imperative. Families could rent a self drive e-car for the night before so they have plenty of time to prep. The money saved in fuel, insurance, parking, maintenance, depreciation, will be enormous - and most people are not rich like some on here. The rich will still probably possess their own glamorous autonomous e-cars, the way the rich still stable horses
I predict this will happen within 5-10 years, as this is one of predictions, it will probably be 10-20 years
There is no money saved for fuel, since fuel-wise you need to pay either way. If you hire a vehicle then that costs more to fuel up in fact than a vehicle you own that you can charge at home if you have a driveway.
Ditto parking etc, etc - we already have that, there's no cost there.
You are approaching this with the narrow closed-mind of a city dwelling single individual. Open your mind up, other people are different.
You're approaching it with the dogmatic narrow mind of someone who has bought a house with a drive and a garage and who loves his car. Enjoy it while it lasts, it is on the way out (but probably more slowly than I predict)
If self-driving cars are programmed to avoid hitting people what's to stop pedestrians wandering across the street at will? We are constrained at present by the fear that a driver may be too stupid, callous or angry to stop. A robot programmed to 'do no evil' will never get anywhere.
That is a great point. And I don't think you would be able to update the Highway Code for a jaywalking law because ultimately, the car will always be programmed to stop in case the pedestrian is having a medical episode or something.
Hmmm.
And yet they are clearly doing fine in SF, Phoenix, LA and some Chinese cities
Of course you can argue that these cities were BUILT for the car so they are the easiest to automate. And that is absolutely true. But remember the tech we see now is as bad as it will ever be, and the speed of progress is probably accelerating, if anything
Maybe because in a lot of those places it isn't normal for pedestrians to cross roads outside of strictly-defined locations.
Imo that's not quite right from from Leon and Andy_JS.
Historically US cities were built for the horse, horse and cart or coach, and people walking.
What happened is that the motor industry lobby took control of the process via US money-based rather than people-based politics, and newer areas have been designed to exclude non-motor-vehicle forms of transport in part via zoning laws starting from around 1900 - using features such as non-mixed use areas. Then it gets into a conditioning loop where Usonians lost sight of the idea that they do not have to be drones, and that they can choose how they want to live.
In older areas quite often they have literally been semi-demolished to make way for roads and parking. You don't walk the dog or the old person or the disabled relative; you put them in your truck, drive them to wherever you want to walk them, and walk them in that place. Here we still normally just walk to the local park or public footpath or multiuser trail etc, pretty much everywhere.
"Get them out of our way" jaywalking laws are part of that.
One of the more interesting things are how developing countries have over the last 2 generations in places largely adopted the crazy Usonian model, which dying. Pity Shanghai and Beijing.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
Can I be picky here and say that if there is a god then there's likely to be lots of them. "The one god" is pretty unlikely.
I can believe in the omniscient and omnipotent property but the benevolent property is what concerns me.
I think we are creating an omniscient and omnipotent entity in the combination of internet, AI and connected smartphones, each with a camera and microphone. If it were benevolent it would deserve the title of God. But that's a big IF.
PS I think that dogs believe that we are gods. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
To combine all the themes, a thinker on TwiX (yes yes) recently asked the best ChatGPT model (the $200 a month one) a sequence of questions designed to get it to think as deeply as possible about the structure of the universe. So this is a computer arguably smarter than any human who has ever lived
All of its answers were fascinating, and about half tended clearly towards a spiritual explanation of life, the universe, everything
When asked explicitly the chances of "God existing" it said "a high chance"
Your allowing the veils to blind you as to the lady's charm. AI is absolutely nowhere in terms of thinking, understanding, or being. It's just a very effective charade.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
Can I be picky here and say that if there is a god then there's likely to be lots of them. "The one god" is pretty unlikely.
I can believe in the omniscient and omnipotent property but the benevolent property is what concerns me.
I think we are creating an omniscient and omnipotent entity in the combination of internet, AI and connected smartphones, each with a camera and microphone. If it were benevolent it would deserve the title of God. But that's a big IF.
PS I think that dogs believe that we are gods. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
To combine all the themes, a thinker on TwiX (yes yes) recently asked the best ChatGPT model (the $200 a month one) a sequence of questions designed to get it to think as deeply as possible about the structure of the universe. So this is a computer arguably smarter than any human who has ever lived
All of its answers were fascinating, and about half tended clearly towards a spiritual explanation of life, the universe, everything
When asked explicitly the chances of "God existing" it said "a high chance"
Your allowing the veils to blind you as to the lady's charm. AI is absolutely nowhere in terms of thinking, understanding, or being. It's just a very effective charade.
I would be very careful.investing in the mag 7 at these levels. Market getting very one sided.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
Can I be picky here and say that if there is a god then there's likely to be lots of them. "The one god" is pretty unlikely.
I can believe in the omniscient and omnipotent property but the benevolent property is what concerns me.
I think we are creating an omniscient and omnipotent entity in the combination of internet, AI and connected smartphones, each with a camera and microphone. If it were benevolent it would deserve the title of God. But that's a big IF.
PS I think that dogs believe that we are gods. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
To combine all the themes, a thinker on TwiX (yes yes) recently asked the best ChatGPT model (the $200 a month one) a sequence of questions designed to get it to think as deeply as possible about the structure of the universe. So this is a computer arguably smarter than any human who has ever lived
All of its answers were fascinating, and about half tended clearly towards a spiritual explanation of life, the universe, everything
When asked explicitly the chances of "God existing" it said "a high chance"
Your allowing the veils to blind you as to the lady's charm. AI is absolutely nowhere in terms of thinking, understanding, or being. It's just a very effective charade.
I would be very careful.investing in the mag 7 at these levels. Market getting very one sided.
The single best thing we could do for growth of course, is rejoining the single market. But Labour can’t go there, yet.
We could get the same growth rates as France and Germany.
Plus another half million Roma to live in the poorer parts of northern England.
Citation needed.
About what ?
Its what could happen if we re-join the single market and have freedom of movement with the EU.
If you don't think there are any Roma in the poorer parts of northern England then have a look around the poorer parts of northern England.
(There seems to have been pretty free movement into the UK since Brexit. Not so easy for would be ex-pats to leave under the circumstances we could before.)
As a point of order your comment on Roma with specific reference to Northern England.
I know its a common claim to say that we have free movement with Brexit but we don't.
Immigrants have been dominated by:
Students Health and social care workers Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees Various unwanted 'asylum seekers' / economic refugees from failed states
A return of free movement with the EU would allow millions more economic migrants either for work (there are lots of job vacancies and the UK minimum wage has increased significantly) or benefits (which would be as attractive to some immigrants as they are to some British people).
As to the Roma - given the increasing tendency for Eastern European countries to elect ever more right wing authoritarian governments - they might be more incentivised than most to migrate to another country.
I was hoping for evidence rather than a list of right wing tropes.
I'm not sure what your point is.
You seem to think we have lots of immigrants now but wouldn't get more if we actually had free movement.
The pattern of recent decades is that there tends to be more immigration than expected.
I see no reason why having free movement with the EU again would not lead to higher immigration than expected.
Expecially given the economic issues on the continent. The pre-Brexit wave of immigration from the EU wasn't just from the accession countries but also from people in "old Europe" fleeing unemployment.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
Can I be picky here and say that if there is a god then there's likely to be lots of them. "The one god" is pretty unlikely.
I can believe in the omniscient and omnipotent property but the benevolent property is what concerns me.
I think we are creating an omniscient and omnipotent entity in the combination of internet, AI and connected smartphones, each with a camera and microphone. If it were benevolent it would deserve the title of God. But that's a big IF.
PS I think that dogs believe that we are gods. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
To combine all the themes, a thinker on TwiX (yes yes) recently asked the best ChatGPT model (the $200 a month one) a sequence of questions designed to get it to think as deeply as possible about the structure of the universe. So this is a computer arguably smarter than any human who has ever lived
All of its answers were fascinating, and about half tended clearly towards a spiritual explanation of life, the universe, everything
When asked explicitly the chances of "God existing" it said "a high chance"
Your allowing the veils to blind you as to the lady's charm. AI is absolutely nowhere in terms of thinking, understanding, or being. It's just a very effective charade.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
Can I be picky here and say that if there is a god then there's likely to be lots of them. "The one god" is pretty unlikely.
I can believe in the omniscient and omnipotent property but the benevolent property is what concerns me.
I think we are creating an omniscient and omnipotent entity in the combination of internet, AI and connected smartphones, each with a camera and microphone. If it were benevolent it would deserve the title of God. But that's a big IF.
PS I think that dogs believe that we are gods. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
To combine all the themes, a thinker on TwiX (yes yes) recently asked the best ChatGPT model (the $200 a month one) a sequence of questions designed to get it to think as deeply as possible about the structure of the universe. So this is a computer arguably smarter than any human who has ever lived
All of its answers were fascinating, and about half tended clearly towards a spiritual explanation of life, the universe, everything
When asked explicitly the chances of "God existing" it said "a high chance"
Your allowing the veils to blind you as to the lady's charm. AI is absolutely nowhere in terms of thinking, understanding, or being. It's just a very effective charade.
Are their asylum claims still valid? No? Well toodleoo then.
Legally the claims absolutely will still be valid.
We still define HTS as a proscribed terrorist organisation. It is far too premature to claim Syria is now "safe".
So the question is what happens with people who still have a legal right to remain here, but could potentially be tempted to return despite having a right to remain.
The single best thing we could do for growth of course, is rejoining the single market. But Labour can’t go there, yet.
We could get the same growth rates as France and Germany.
Plus another half million Roma to live in the poorer parts of northern England.
Citation needed.
About what ?
Its what could happen if we re-join the single market and have freedom of movement with the EU.
If you don't think there are any Roma in the poorer parts of northern England then have a look around the poorer parts of northern England.
(There seems to have been pretty free movement into the UK since Brexit. Not so easy for would be ex-pats to leave under the circumstances we could before.)
As a point of order your comment on Roma with specific reference to Northern England.
I know its a common claim to say that we have free movement with Brexit but we don't.
Immigrants have been dominated by:
Students Health and social care workers Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees Various unwanted 'asylum seekers' / economic refugees from failed states
A return of free movement with the EU would allow millions more economic migrants either for work (there are lots of job vacancies and the UK minimum wage has increased significantly) or benefits (which would be as attractive to some immigrants as they are to some British people).
As to the Roma - given the increasing tendency for Eastern European countries to elect ever more right wing authoritarian governments - they might be more incentivised than most to migrate to another country.
I was hoping for evidence rather than a list of right wing tropes.
I'm not sure what your point is.
You seem to think we have lots of immigrants now but wouldn't get more if we actually had free movement.
The pattern of recent decades is that there tends to be more immigration than expected.
I see no reason why having free movement with the EU again would not lead to higher immigration than expected.
Expecially given the economic issues on the continent. The pre-Brexit wave of immigration from the EU wasn't just from the accession countries but also from people in "old Europe" fleeing unemployment.
Have you never seen Au Wiedesehen Pet?
Yes, and having lived in the North East, I could understand the actors, too.
I note the Tories have also not put a target on what immigration should be or when they’d cut the boat crossings by. Presumably, wisely learning from their past mistakes.
Pleased to see Cooper avoiding that. Promising things that are to a large extent outside your control is a mug's game.
By definition, immigration is in the controlling hands of the government. It can issue 0 visas or 1m. What is this ludicrous idea that Britain is the passive victim of global migration flows?! It’s pathetic. We have the choice
Leon we only have the choice if we can increase our birthrate. Yet mention anything that might increase our birthrate such as horror lower property prices or horror perhaps not prioritising females in the workplace and you get massive pushback. So we are where we are. If we reduced immigration massively our economy would basically collapse.
No it wouldn’t. The robots are coming
I’ve heard of two jobs in my social circle being replaced by machines this last month
It’s begun
To be fair we are a way off robots being able to work in care homes.
Depends on the task. Most people are unaware of the huge strides in robotics
Oh ive seen the tesla robots. But driverless cars were promised by now and outside certain niches still hasnt materialised.
We just had a big PB debate on this
Driverless cars are finally taking off. In SF, Waymo are now equal with Lyft and are beginning to eat Uber’s lunch. Soon they will dominate
Dominating the taxi sector is different to dominating the vehicular sector altogether.
Even if they dominate, there is no reason why taxis will replace ownership.
There's no reason why people can't or won't own their own driverless car. Having your own automated vehicle rather than relying upon other people's still enables all the creature comforts that allows people to adapt their own vehicle as they like it rather than relying upon other people's.
Sure, but it will just be you. With your very own driverless car proudly parked outside your redbrick Barratt home semi in Newent
Everyone else will think Fuck it I can save £1000s by just ordering up an autonomous electric car as and when - to use for an hour or a day or a month - why do I need this stupid thing cluttering up my drive when I can have flowers and stuff, and half the time it just sits there, depreciating
They could already do that and use taxis if they wanted to. Already nothing is preventing them from doing that.
People like to have their own vehicles for a multitude of reasons. A shortage of taxis is not one of them.
The cost advantage of not owning a car will grow until - for all but the mad or massively rich - it will outweigh any benefits
It will be like the horse. Once everyone aspired to own a horse. They were the hegemonic form of transport
Now only eccentric gypsies and rich people in the country own horses. So it shall be for cars
That will take some time. But then will happen very quickly.
When I lived in London I gave up the car, as public transport was so good and finding somewhere to park was so expensive. Living in rural Oxfordshire as I do now it feels impossible.
It is also a matter of degree, surely?
For a couple a switch from two cars to one-and-a-runabout, or to one-and-a-car-club-for-big-loads are possible, then to one-and-walk-or-cycle-locally.
Then if possible you can choose to go further.
These are models we can choose to make impossible or make possible, by how we design our built environment.
Current issues are around where dominance by motor transport removes the possibility of choice, and vested interests that benefit, or believe they benefit, from maintenance of that social setup.
We need to be intentional around creating the possibility of choices.
The single best thing we could do for growth of course, is rejoining the single market. But Labour can’t go there, yet.
We could get the same growth rates as France and Germany.
Plus another half million Roma to live in the poorer parts of northern England.
Citation needed.
About what ?
Its what could happen if we re-join the single market and have freedom of movement with the EU.
If you don't think there are any Roma in the poorer parts of northern England then have a look around the poorer parts of northern England.
(There seems to have been pretty free movement into the UK since Brexit. Not so easy for would be ex-pats to leave under the circumstances we could before.)
As a point of order your comment on Roma with specific reference to Northern England.
I know its a common claim to say that we have free movement with Brexit but we don't.
Immigrants have been dominated by:
Students Health and social care workers Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees Various unwanted 'asylum seekers' / economic refugees from failed states
A return of free movement with the EU would allow millions more economic migrants either for work (there are lots of job vacancies and the UK minimum wage has increased significantly) or benefits (which would be as attractive to some immigrants as they are to some British people).
As to the Roma - given the increasing tendency for Eastern European countries to elect ever more right wing authoritarian governments - they might be more incentivised than most to migrate to another country.
I was hoping for evidence rather than a list of right wing tropes.
I'm not sure what your point is.
You seem to think we have lots of immigrants now but wouldn't get more if we actually had free movement.
The pattern of recent decades is that there tends to be more immigration than expected.
I see no reason why having free movement with the EU again would not lead to higher immigration than expected.
Expecially given the economic issues on the continent. The pre-Brexit wave of immigration from the EU wasn't just from the accession countries but also from people in "old Europe" fleeing unemployment.
Have you never seen Au Wiedesehen Pet?
Yes, and having lived in the North East, I could understand the actors, too.
I mentioned it as a counterpoint to @williamglenn 's assertion that old Europe came over here to steal our jobs (and there was no reciprocation).
Mind you It was odd casting that the Brummie was played by a Londoner and the Bristolian by a Brummie.
The single best thing we could do for growth of course, is rejoining the single market. But Labour can’t go there, yet.
We could get the same growth rates as France and Germany.
Plus another half million Roma to live in the poorer parts of northern England.
Citation needed.
About what ?
Its what could happen if we re-join the single market and have freedom of movement with the EU.
If you don't think there are any Roma in the poorer parts of northern England then have a look around the poorer parts of northern England.
(There seems to have been pretty free movement into the UK since Brexit. Not so easy for would be ex-pats to leave under the circumstances we could before.)
As a point of order your comment on Roma with specific reference to Northern England.
I know its a common claim to say that we have free movement with Brexit but we don't.
Immigrants have been dominated by:
Students Health and social care workers Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees Various unwanted 'asylum seekers' / economic refugees from failed states
A return of free movement with the EU would allow millions more economic migrants either for work (there are lots of job vacancies and the UK minimum wage has increased significantly) or benefits (which would be as attractive to some immigrants as they are to some British people).
As to the Roma - given the increasing tendency for Eastern European countries to elect ever more right wing authoritarian governments - they might be more incentivised than most to migrate to another country.
I was hoping for evidence rather than a list of right wing tropes.
I'm not sure what your point is.
You seem to think we have lots of immigrants now but wouldn't get more if we actually had free movement.
The pattern of recent decades is that there tends to be more immigration than expected.
I see no reason why having free movement with the EU again would not lead to higher immigration than expected.
We've always had economic migrants. From the Irish digging the canals to post war school teachers from Wales. Also in the other direction North East English miners to the Carmarthenshire coal fields. These people assimilate into society despite the NE miners families being referred to as the Durham's for three generations. Same with the EU. We had the Windrush generation. The World goes around..
In order to manipulate the figures the Sunak Government sold the Higher Education industry down the river.
Boris Johnson told us after Brexit that when Eastern Europeans whom he didn't like went home we could welcome " our friends from South East Asia" which was nice of him. Now it doesn't bother me but you Johnsonians are barking on about Johnny Foreigner yet Alexander Johnson said it would be fine. And of course he was famous for getting all the big calls right.
There's a difference between economic migrants whose numbers and type are controlled and economic migrants who are unrestricted.
Which is why richer and skilled immigrants are more popular than poorer and unskilled immigrants and why migrants who come to work in health and social care are more popular than those who come to wash cars.
Incidentally Starmer criticizes the Conservatives for a 'open borders experiment' even though the type of immigrants was more controlled than previously.
Having free movement with the EU again would be an actual open borders experiment.
The single best thing we could do for growth of course, is rejoining the single market. But Labour can’t go there, yet.
We could get the same growth rates as France and Germany.
Plus another half million Roma to live in the poorer parts of northern England.
Citation needed.
About what ?
Its what could happen if we re-join the single market and have freedom of movement with the EU.
If you don't think there are any Roma in the poorer parts of northern England then have a look around the poorer parts of northern England.
(There seems to have been pretty free movement into the UK since Brexit. Not so easy for would be ex-pats to leave under the circumstances we could before.)
As a point of order your comment on Roma with specific reference to Northern England.
I know its a common claim to say that we have free movement with Brexit but we don't.
Immigrants have been dominated by:
Students Health and social care workers Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees Various unwanted 'asylum seekers' / economic refugees from failed states
A return of free movement with the EU would allow millions more economic migrants either for work (there are lots of job vacancies and the UK minimum wage has increased significantly) or benefits (which would be as attractive to some immigrants as they are to some British people).
As to the Roma - given the increasing tendency for Eastern European countries to elect ever more right wing authoritarian governments - they might be more incentivised than most to migrate to another country.
I was hoping for evidence rather than a list of right wing tropes.
I'm not sure what your point is.
You seem to think we have lots of immigrants now but wouldn't get more if we actually had free movement.
The pattern of recent decades is that there tends to be more immigration than expected.
I see no reason why having free movement with the EU again would not lead to higher immigration than expected.
Expecially given the economic issues on the continent. The pre-Brexit wave of immigration from the EU wasn't just from the accession countries but also from people in "old Europe" fleeing unemployment.
Have you never seen Au Wiedesehen Pet?
I said “pre-Brexit wave”. We’ve had far too much job creation in the UK.
I note the Tories have also not put a target on what immigration should be or when they’d cut the boat crossings by. Presumably, wisely learning from their past mistakes.
Pleased to see Cooper avoiding that. Promising things that are to a large extent outside your control is a mug's game.
By definition, immigration is in the controlling hands of the government. It can issue 0 visas or 1m. What is this ludicrous idea that Britain is the passive victim of global migration flows?! It’s pathetic. We have the choice
Leon we only have the choice if we can increase our birthrate. Yet mention anything that might increase our birthrate such as horror lower property prices or horror perhaps not prioritising females in the workplace and you get massive pushback. So we are where we are. If we reduced immigration massively our economy would basically collapse.
No it wouldn’t. The robots are coming
I’ve heard of two jobs in my social circle being replaced by machines this last month
It’s begun
To be fair we are a way off robots being able to work in care homes.
Depends on the task. Most people are unaware of the huge strides in robotics
Oh ive seen the tesla robots. But driverless cars were promised by now and outside certain niches still hasnt materialised.
We just had a big PB debate on this
Driverless cars are finally taking off. In SF, Waymo are now equal with Lyft and are beginning to eat Uber’s lunch. Soon they will dominate
Dominating the taxi sector is different to dominating the vehicular sector altogether.
Even if they dominate, there is no reason why taxis will replace ownership.
There's no reason why people can't or won't own their own driverless car. Having your own automated vehicle rather than relying upon other people's still enables all the creature comforts that allows people to adapt their own vehicle as they like it rather than relying upon other people's.
Sure, but it will just be you. With your very own driverless car proudly parked outside your redbrick Barratt home semi in Newent
Everyone else will think Fuck it I can save £1000s by just ordering up an autonomous electric car as and when - to use for an hour or a day or a month - why do I need this stupid thing cluttering up my drive when I can have flowers and stuff, and half the time it just sits there, depreciating
They could already do that and use taxis if they wanted to. Already nothing is preventing them from doing that.
People like to have their own vehicles for a multitude of reasons. A shortage of taxis is not one of them.
The cost advantage of not owning a car will grow until - for all but the mad or massively rich - it will outweigh any benefits
It will be like the horse. Once everyone aspired to own a horse. They were the hegemonic form of transport
Now only eccentric gypsies and rich people in the country own horses. So it shall be for cars
That will take some time. But then will happen very quickly.
When I lived in London I gave up the car, as public transport was so good and finding somewhere to park was so expensive. Living in rural Oxfordshire as I do now it feels impossible.
It is also a matter of degree, surely?
For a couple a switch from two cars to one-and-a-runabout, or to one-and-a-car-club-for-big-loads are possible, then to one-and-walk-or-cycle-locally.
Then if possible you can choose to go further.
These are models we can choose to make impossible or make possible, by how we design our built environment.
Current issues are around where dominance by motor transport removes the possibility of choice, and vested interests that benefit, or believe they benefit, from maintenance of that social setup.
We need to be intentional around creating the possibility of choices.
Where I live, a new build area, it's been built with both in mind.
I have my own off road parking, and every road that has been built has cycle paths.
I can ride my bike with my kids to the local park at the weekend, or I can drive to work, the choice is mine and mine alone.
No reason it needs to be all one or all the other. And by building more roads we can build infrastructure that supports both options.
Meh. Stupid and self-serving left winger column that basically equates to 'Badenoch should fight Reform for us'.
Mandy Rice Davis obviously applies, but whilst criticism of Badenoch is justified, why would 'apologising for Liz Truss' be a genius move? Would it be an amazing move for Starmer to issue an apology for Jeremy Corbyn?
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
A priori, the former is no less credible than the latter; hence all that time spent sitting around inventing religions in ancient times was wasted, assuming you actually expect them to explain anything.
Even in the latter case, there’s no evidence nor logic for worshipping such an entity, who might very credibly be malign, or indifferent, as the evidence of history strongly suggests.
Meh. Stupid and self-serving left winger column that basically equates to 'Badenoch should fight Reform for us'.
Mandy Rice Davis obviously applies, but whilst criticism of Badenoch is justified, why would 'apologising for Liz Truss' be a genius move? Would it be an amazing move for Starmer to issue an apology for Jeremy Corbyn?
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
Can I be picky here and say that if there is a god then there's likely to be lots of them. "The one god" is pretty unlikely.
I can believe in the omniscient and omnipotent property but the benevolent property is what concerns me.
I think we are creating an omniscient and omnipotent entity in the combination of internet, AI and connected smartphones, each with a camera and microphone. If it were benevolent it would deserve the title of God. But that's a big IF.
PS I think that dogs believe that we are gods. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
To combine all the themes, a thinker on TwiX (yes yes) recently asked the best ChatGPT model (the $200 a month one) a sequence of questions designed to get it to think as deeply as possible about the structure of the universe. So this is a computer arguably smarter than any human who has ever lived
All of its answers were fascinating, and about half tended clearly towards a spiritual explanation of life, the universe, everything
When asked explicitly the chances of "God existing" it said "a high chance"
Your allowing the veils to blind you as to the lady's charm. AI is absolutely nowhere in terms of thinking, understanding, or being. It's just a very effective charade.
I would be very careful.investing in the mag 7 at these levels. Market getting very one sided.
I've no idea what that means.
The mag 7 are the leading ai companies like nvidia and microsoft.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
Can I be picky here and say that if there is a god then there's likely to be lots of them. "The one god" is pretty unlikely.
I can believe in the omniscient and omnipotent property but the benevolent property is what concerns me.
I think we are creating an omniscient and omnipotent entity in the combination of internet, AI and connected smartphones, each with a camera and microphone. If it were benevolent it would deserve the title of God. But that's a big IF.
PS I think that dogs believe that we are gods. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
To combine all the themes, a thinker on TwiX (yes yes) recently asked the best ChatGPT model (the $200 a month one) a sequence of questions designed to get it to think as deeply as possible about the structure of the universe. So this is a computer arguably smarter than any human who has ever lived
All of its answers were fascinating, and about half tended clearly towards a spiritual explanation of life, the universe, everything
When asked explicitly the chances of "God existing" it said "a high chance"
Your allowing the veils to blind you as to the lady's charm. AI is absolutely nowhere in terms of thinking, understanding, or being. It's just a very effective charade.
I would be very careful.investing in the mag 7 at these levels. Market getting very one sided.
I've no idea what that means.
The mag 7 are the leading ai companies like nvidia and microsoft.
Ah, I see - what does the market being one sided mean? Surely a market has equal numbers of buyers and sellers? Also why do you imagine I might invest in such things?
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000?
I have to say I find that surprising.
I don’t read the telegraph
But I assume that they have assumed (a) inheritance tax on his pension (charge of £440k) leaving approximately £750k on which they will pay income tax as they draw it down
Federal officials are set to deploy a high-tech drone detection system to New York State as swarms of unidentified flying objects popping up in the tri-state area continue to leave experts perplexed.
A day as overcast as a Viking's arse has suddenly revealed an unexpectedly dramatic sunset. I love living at 53 degrees north. In the afternoons and evenings, anyway.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
A priori, the former is no less credible than the latter; hence all that time spent sitting around inventing religions in ancient times was wasted, assuming you actually expect them to explain anything.
Even in the latter case, there’s no evidence nor logic for worshipping such an entity, who might very credibly be malign, or indifferent, as the evidence of history strongly suggests.
Take the Buddhist approach:
Is there a god? It doesn't matter either way.
Not sure that's precisely the mainstream Buddhist view.
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
If one were a teeny weeny bit world-weary, one could wonder if having friends in high places has meant that some schools have not had quite as fearless scrutiny as they should have done.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
That’s the idea of Santa; softening up the kids on the entry level so that they’re later ready to redeploy their credulity onto the hard stuff.
Not much choice about the hard stuff except for those refusing to take any side. It's all hard.
Either the universe is self made and without purpose and the origin of life itself is self assembled, both utterly unfathomable; or they occur as the somehow result of the intention of an pre existing entity, let us give it the traditional name of 'the one god'. Just as unfathomable.
All hard stuff. Yes, Santa is a soft entry level.
A priori, the former is no less credible than the latter; hence all that time spent sitting around inventing religions in ancient times was wasted, assuming you actually expect them to explain anything.
Even in the latter case, there’s no evidence nor logic for worshipping such an entity, who might very credibly be malign, or indifferent, as the evidence of history strongly suggests.
Take the Buddhist approach:
Is there a god? It doesn't matter either way.
Not sure that's precisely the mainstream Buddhist view.
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000?
I have to say I find that surprising.
I don’t read the telegraph
But I assume that they have assumed (a) inheritance tax on his pension (charge of £440k) leaving approximately £750k on which they will pay income tax as they draw it down
Edit: read the article (thanks @mattw) and was spot on. I don’t have sympathy on the inheritance tax point, but I do think the draw down penalty is unfair. Once inheritance tax has been paid surely the capital should be treated as outside a pension and therefore no longer subject to the drawdown rules (but interest would be subject to income tax obviously)
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
Federal officials are set to deploy a high-tech drone detection system to New York State as swarms of unidentified flying objects popping up in the tri-state area continue to leave experts perplexed.
So why haven't the military tried to intercept any of these things?
Meh. Stupid and self-serving left winger column that basically equates to 'Badenoch should fight Reform for us'.
Mandy Rice Davis obviously applies, but whilst criticism of Badenoch is justified, why would 'apologising for Liz Truss' be a genius move? Would it be an amazing move for Starmer to issue an apology for Jeremy Corbyn?
Yes.
Starmer expelled Corbyn from the Party.
Irrelevant. For Starmer to go back and apologise for the Corbyn era would be a ludicrously stupid way to shine a spotlight on a weak area, and the Tories would love it. The same applies to Eaton's idea of Badenoch 'apologising' for Truss.
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000?
I have to say I find that surprising.
I don’t read the telegraph
But I assume that they have assumed (a) inheritance tax on his pension (charge of £440k) leaving approximately £750k on which they will pay income tax as they draw it down
The figures are from the person writing the letter, not calculated by the Telegraph.
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
As a lawyer specialising in the taxation of pension schemes for over 20 years, my considered view of that letter, and indeed of the telegraph's coverage of the relevant part of the Budget generally, is that it is a steaming pile of horse****.
I don't like the current Russian regime, and LOL at any ships they lose. But it can't be nice to be on a ship and to see even your bow is giving you the finger.
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
Fictional? I thought it was a documentary.
I am also intellectually rather shallow.
Clearly not - the episode when Dennis and Oz go to see Standard Liege versus Sunderland was the big giveaway.
Real life Newcastle fans would never have done that.
Speaking of technology changing the world, there’s a good article in the guardian about the existential crisis facing universities. As predicted
I can’t recall you ever predicting a good article in the Guardian.
Students are all using bots to write essays. First class degrees are becoming the norm. Universities are hurtling towards pointlessness, kids will not take on debt to get worthless degrees that don’t lead to a decent job
Imagine a world where intelligence has a value close to zero, because intelligence will be everywhere and freely available. That’s the future and there ain’t much room for the university
Only if you assume AI automatically becomes the oracle of all intelligence and fact and skill, in which case most jobs would be done by AI anyway
I don't like the current Russian regime, and LOL at any ships they lose. But it can't be nice to be on a ship and to see even your bow is giving you the finger.
(Apparently two Russian ships broke up this morning in the Kerch Strait.)
could not happen to a nicer lot
Russians swarm around the UK still. Putin - 'nothing to do with us' they say. Having thought about this a little I think that all Russian citizens are responsible for Putin. Thus all Russian citizens should be booted out of the UK and generally treated as though they were Putin. This includes dual citizens.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
A spokesperson for the Diocese of Portsmouth said: “We understand that the vicar of St Faith’s, Lee-on-the-Solent, the Rev Paul Chamberlain, was leading an RE lesson for 10- and 11-year-olds at Lee-on-Solent junior school.
“After talking about the nativity story from the Bible, he made some comments about the existence of Father Christmas.
“Paul has accepted that this was an error of judgment, and he should not have done so. He apologised unreservedly to the school, to the parents and to the children, and the headteacher immediately wrote to all parents to explain this.
“The school and diocese have worked together to address this issue, and the headteacher has now written to parents a second time, sending them Paul’s apology.”
I don't like the current Russian regime, and LOL at any ships they lose. But it can't be nice to be on a ship and to see even your bow is giving you the finger.
I note the Tories have also not put a target on what immigration should be or when they’d cut the boat crossings by. Presumably, wisely learning from their past mistakes.
Pleased to see Cooper avoiding that. Promising things that are to a large extent outside your control is a mug's game.
By definition, immigration is in the controlling hands of the government. It can issue 0 visas or 1m. What is this ludicrous idea that Britain is the passive victim of global migration flows?! It’s pathetic. We have the choice
Leon we only have the choice if we can increase our birthrate. Yet mention anything that might increase our birthrate such as horror lower property prices or horror perhaps not prioritising females in the workplace and you get massive pushback. So we are where we are. If we reduced immigration massively our economy would basically collapse.
No it wouldn’t. The robots are coming
I’ve heard of two jobs in my social circle being replaced by machines this last month
It’s begun
To be fair we are a way off robots being able to work in care homes.
Depends on the task. Most people are unaware of the huge strides in robotics
Oh ive seen the tesla robots. But driverless cars were promised by now and outside certain niches still hasnt materialised.
We just had a big PB debate on this
Driverless cars are finally taking off. In SF, Waymo are now equal with Lyft and are beginning to eat Uber’s lunch. Soon they will dominate
Dominating the taxi sector is different to dominating the vehicular sector altogether.
Even if they dominate, there is no reason why taxis will replace ownership.
There's no reason why people can't or won't own their own driverless car. Having your own automated vehicle rather than relying upon other people's still enables all the creature comforts that allows people to adapt their own vehicle as they like it rather than relying upon other people's.
Sure, but it will just be you. With your very own driverless car proudly parked outside your redbrick Barratt home semi in Newent
Everyone else will think Fuck it I can save £1000s by just ordering up an autonomous electric car as and when - to use for an hour or a day or a month - why do I need this stupid thing cluttering up my drive when I can have flowers and stuff, and half the time it just sits there, depreciating
Whats wrong with redbrick Barratt homes. We cant all live in Primrose Hill.
They’re ugly af
New build estates vary.
They are often more visually pleasing than the new build estates of the 20th century.
Where? I wish it were so, I hate the uglification of the country, but the vast majority of new build estates either look mediocre or downright hideous
There are a few pleasing exceptions. The king’s stuff down in Cornwall is proper job
Horrible to live in too. Small rooms and windows, no storage space, overinsulated ugh.
Yes, they look so fucking POKY. Rabbit hutches with no natural light. UGH
They don't build this shit on the continent, why have we imposed this on ourselves?
Take a walk down any 1900s street of terraced houses - poky, rabbit hutches with no natural light.
And remember that the worst of them have since been demolished.
I doubt its much different in most of Europe, its more that middle class tourists don't tend to walk around working class areas.
Absolutely right. When you drive over the border out of Geneva you aren’t in pretty touristy France (unless sticking to the lakeside for Evian and Yvoire) - it’s working towns like Annemasse and then all the small industrial towns that pepper the landscape up to the alps.
The houses are not pretty and all have messy shitty yards and gardens where they just dump anything with low wire fences. The apartment blocks are also pretty grim.
As you said, tourists don’t see these areas which comprise the majority of countries’ built up areas.
The problem with Barratt houses is not the size. It is that the build quality is utter shit. It is utter shit compared to similar houses 40 years ago and it is utter shit compared to similar houses in the rest of Europe. They are thrown up and fited out by semi-skilled labourers who are paid the modern equivalent of piece work and who are concerned only with getting as many jobs done as possible in the alloted time. They quality control is non-existent and there is a whole new industry that has developed around correcting the mistakes and ommisions and making the properties fit to live in. Snagging doesn't even begin to cover it. There are building firms who do a far better job but the main developers are getting away withg building houses that, at the time of sale, are unfit to live in.
Unfortunately our planning system gives permission to these developers to develop large estates, while denying permission to small developments by independent could-be developers.
In Japan where permission is not required to build most development happens on demand, when and where it is needed, one house at a time.
In the UK, where permission can be got by the developers who can game the system while nonody else can, we get entire estates or nothing with no real competition.
Simply irrelevant to what I wrote as well as being factually wrong. Apart from that well done.
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
Fictional? I thought it was a documentary.
I am also intellectually rather shallow.
Clearly not - the episode when Dennis and Oz go to see Standard Liege versus Sunderland was the big giveaway.
Real life Newcastle fans would never have done that.
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
A spokesperson for the Diocese of Portsmouth said: “We understand that the vicar of St Faith’s, Lee-on-the-Solent, the Rev Paul Chamberlain, was leading an RE lesson for 10- and 11-year-olds at Lee-on-Solent junior school.
“After talking about the nativity story from the Bible, he made some comments about the existence of Father Christmas.
“Paul has accepted that this was an error of judgment, and he should not have done so. He apologised unreservedly to the school, to the parents and to the children, and the headteacher immediately wrote to all parents to explain this.
“The school and diocese have worked together to address this issue, and the headteacher has now written to parents a second time, sending them Paul’s apology.”
God is real of course, as is Santa
I reckon the Rev Chamberlain should have kept his head well down. Probably made things worse now.
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
Fictional? I thought it was a documentary.
I am also intellectually rather shallow.
Clearly not - the episode when Dennis and Oz go to see Standard Liege versus Sunderland was the big giveaway.
Real life Newcastle fans would never have done that.
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
At least it's a step above "Paddington bear was an immigrant, you know!" which, as far as I know, has no inspiration in reality.
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
Fictional? I thought it was a documentary.
I am also intellectually rather shallow.
Clearly not - the episode when Dennis and Oz go to see Standard Liege versus Sunderland was the big giveaway.
Real life Newcastle fans would never have done that.
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Or alternatively draw the pension himself. Pensions are a provision for old age, not an IHT dodge.
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
At least it's a step above "Paddington bear was an immigrant, you know!" which, as far as I know, has no inspiration in reality.
The man who brought Paddington's stories to the attention of the world might disagree;
So Paddington, in a sense, was a refugee, and I do think that there’s no sadder sight than refugees
The ABC - Trump defamation settlement is strange. AIUI Stephanopoulus described Trump as an adjudicated rapist (in accordance with NY Court findings) on his programme, and Trump sued him for defamation because he seems OK with "sex abuser", but not with "rapist".
Deposition hearings were coming up, with Trump due to be on oath on video being interviewed by ABC lawyers about what he understands about the difference, his alleged history of sex abuse, ogling half-naked teenage girls in the changing rooms at his beauty pageants, grabbing women by the pussy, and so on.
ABC have folded, and agreed to pay legal costs and $15m to be used in Trump's Presidential Library.
The last time this was up was when Trump sued Michael Cohen for $500m for defamation in connection with statements made. Cohen held his line, and Trump collapsed his own case the day before the hearings were to start.
Trump sued Carroll herself for defamation on rape vs sexual abuse similar grounds, and his case was rejected by the Judge.
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Isn't this a bit Milliways (and Islington)?
Wasn't it Hotblack Desiato who was spending a year dead for tax reasons?
Meh. Stupid and self-serving left winger column that basically equates to 'Badenoch should fight Reform for us'.
Mandy Rice Davis obviously applies, but whilst criticism of Badenoch is justified, why would 'apologising for Liz Truss' be a genius move? Would it be an amazing move for Starmer to issue an apology for Jeremy Corbyn?
Yes.
Starmer expelled Corbyn from the Party.
Irrelevant. For Starmer to go back and apologise for the Corbyn era would be a ludicrously stupid way to shine a spotlight on a weak area, and the Tories would love it. The same applies to Eaton's idea of Badenoch 'apologising' for Truss.
Starmer has apologised for the Corbyn era.
Because it was the right thing to do and helped him move the party on.
Poor Piers Morgan. Down in 6th place on the naughty list. Or perhaps he'll just be happy to be mentioned alongside the big boys? Is Putin regarded as ineligible for 'naughty'?
The naughty list is made up of comic book villains not the truly monstrous. If it were otherwise Dominique Pelicot would have featured.
And the 80 other men involved in these hideous crimes. They should be on anyone's naughty list. Plus all the other men who used that website during the many years it was allowed to exist.
The ABC - Trump defamation settlement is strange. AIUI Stephanopoulus described Trump as an adjudicated rapist (in accordance with NY Court findings) on his programme, and Trump sued him for defamation because he seems OK with "sex abuser", but not with "rapist".
Deposition hearings were coming up, with Trump due to be on oath on video being interviewed by ABC lawyers about what he understands about the difference, his alleged history of sex abuse, ogling half-naked teenage girls in the changing rooms at his beauty pageants, grabbing women by the pussy, and so on.
ABC have folded, and agreed to pay legal costs and $15m to be used in Trump's Presidential Library.
The last time this was up was when Trump sued Michael Cohen for $500m for defamation in connection with statements made. Cohen held his line, and Trump collapsed his own case the day before the hearings were to start.
Trump sued Carroll herself for defamation on rape vs sexual abuse similar grounds, and his case was rejected by the Judge.
I note the Tories have also not put a target on what immigration should be or when they’d cut the boat crossings by. Presumably, wisely learning from their past mistakes.
Pleased to see Cooper avoiding that. Promising things that are to a large extent outside your control is a mug's game.
By definition, immigration is in the controlling hands of the government. It can issue 0 visas or 1m. What is this ludicrous idea that Britain is the passive victim of global migration flows?! It’s pathetic. We have the choice
Leon we only have the choice if we can increase our birthrate. Yet mention anything that might increase our birthrate such as horror lower property prices or horror perhaps not prioritising females in the workplace and you get massive pushback. So we are where we are. If we reduced immigration massively our economy would basically collapse.
No it wouldn’t. The robots are coming
I’ve heard of two jobs in my social circle being replaced by machines this last month
It’s begun
To be fair we are a way off robots being able to work in care homes.
Depends on the task. Most people are unaware of the huge strides in robotics
Oh ive seen the tesla robots. But driverless cars were promised by now and outside certain niches still hasnt materialised.
We just had a big PB debate on this
Driverless cars are finally taking off. In SF, Waymo are now equal with Lyft and are beginning to eat Uber’s lunch. Soon they will dominate
Dominating the taxi sector is different to dominating the vehicular sector altogether.
Even if they dominate, there is no reason why taxis will replace ownership.
There's no reason why people can't or won't own their own driverless car. Having your own automated vehicle rather than relying upon other people's still enables all the creature comforts that allows people to adapt their own vehicle as they like it rather than relying upon other people's.
Sure, but it will just be you. With your very own driverless car proudly parked outside your redbrick Barratt home semi in Newent
Everyone else will think Fuck it I can save £1000s by just ordering up an autonomous electric car as and when - to use for an hour or a day or a month - why do I need this stupid thing cluttering up my drive when I can have flowers and stuff, and half the time it just sits there, depreciating
Whats wrong with redbrick Barratt homes. We cant all live in Primrose Hill.
They’re ugly af
New build estates vary.
They are often more visually pleasing than the new build estates of the 20th century.
Where? I wish it were so, I hate the uglification of the country, but the vast majority of new build estates either look mediocre or downright hideous
There are a few pleasing exceptions. The king’s stuff down in Cornwall is proper job
Horrible to live in too. Small rooms and windows, no storage space, overinsulated ugh.
Yes, they look so fucking POKY. Rabbit hutches with no natural light. UGH
They don't build this shit on the continent, why have we imposed this on ourselves?
Take a walk down any 1900s street of terraced houses - poky, rabbit hutches with no natural light.
And remember that the worst of them have since been demolished.
I doubt its much different in most of Europe, its more that middle class tourists don't tend to walk around working class areas.
Absolutely right. When you drive over the border out of Geneva you aren’t in pretty touristy France (unless sticking to the lakeside for Evian and Yvoire) - it’s working towns like Annemasse and then all the small industrial towns that pepper the landscape up to the alps.
The houses are not pretty and all have messy shitty yards and gardens where they just dump anything with low wire fences. The apartment blocks are also pretty grim.
As you said, tourists don’t see these areas which comprise the majority of countries’ built up areas.
The problem with Barratt houses is not the size. It is that the build quality is utter shit. It is utter shit compared to similar houses 40 years ago and it is utter shit compared to similar houses in the rest of Europe. They are thrown up and fited out by semi-skilled labourers who are paid the modern equivalent of piece work and who are concerned only with getting as many jobs done as possible in the alloted time. They quality control is non-existent and there is a whole new industry that has developed around correcting the mistakes and ommisions and making the properties fit to live in. Snagging doesn't even begin to cover it. There are building firms who do a far better job but the main developers are getting away withg building houses that, at the time of sale, are unfit to live in.
Unfortunately our planning system gives permission to these developers to develop large estates, while denying permission to small developments by independent could-be developers.
In Japan where permission is not required to build most development happens on demand, when and where it is needed, one house at a time.
In the UK, where permission can be got by the developers who can game the system while nonody else can, we get entire estates or nothing with no real competition.
Simply irrelevant to what I wrote as well as being factually wrong. Apart from that well done.
Entirely relevant and factually correct.
Its relevant because you complain about the "shit" developers are putting up, while defending the planning system that grants permission to those same developers while denying it to others.
Meh. Stupid and self-serving left winger column that basically equates to 'Badenoch should fight Reform for us'.
Mandy Rice Davis obviously applies, but whilst criticism of Badenoch is justified, why would 'apologising for Liz Truss' be a genius move? Would it be an amazing move for Starmer to issue an apology for Jeremy Corbyn?
It might be a smart move; similarly, disavowing the equally ridiculous Truss.
I don't like the current Russian regime, and LOL at any ships they lose. But it can't be nice to be on a ship and to see even your bow is giving you the finger.
(Apparently two Russian ships broke up this morning in the Kerch Strait.)
could not happen to a nicer lot
Russians swarm around the UK still. Putin - 'nothing to do with us' they say. Having thought about this a little I think that all Russian citizens are responsible for Putin. Thus all Russian citizens should be booted out of the UK and generally treated as though they were Putin. This includes dual citizens.
My grandad always told me to never trust a russian.
Its bizarre how Auf Wiedersehen, Pet is brought up as some justification for freedom of movement.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
At least it's a step above "Paddington bear was an immigrant, you know!" which, as far as I know, has no inspiration in reality.
Doesn't it ? ...On the bear's refugee status, Bond was inspired by the sight, during World War II, of Jewish refugee children from Europe arriving in Britain and of London children who were being evacuated to the countryside, the evacuees bearing luggage labels perhaps similar to that attached to the bear Paddington "Please look after this bear". Bond reflects, "They all had a label round their neck with their name and address on and a little case or package containing all their treasured possessions. So Paddington, in a sense, was a refugee, and I do think that there’s no sadder sight than refugees"...
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Or alternatively draw the pension himself. Pensions are a provision for old age, not an IHT dodge.
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
The underlying principle should be that all alternatives should be taxed the same, unless there is a good policy reason.
Pensions are income tax free on the way in and investment roll up.
Draw down excess cash from pension is subject to income tax and then iht on death.
So leaving excess cash in pension should be the same but in reverse. IHT on death and the income tax on draw down.
It is the pre 75 death with income tax free subsequent draw downs which is the anomaly. Perhaps the policy intent is to try and ensure pensions are not drawn down too early?
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Or alternatively draw the pension himself. Pensions are a provision for old age, not an IHT dodge.
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
The underlying principle should be that all alternatives should be taxed the same, unless there is a good policy reason.
Pensions are income tax free on the way in and investment roll up.
Draw down excess cash from pension is subject to income tax and then iht on death.
So leaving excess cash in pension should be the same but in reverse. IHT on death and the income tax on draw down.
It is the pre 75 death with income tax free subsequent draw downs which is the anomaly. Perhaps the policy intent is to try and ensure pensions are not drawn down too early?
It won't apply to me as I am already drawing my teachers pension, but if I'd died the day before retirement, could I have left my whole pension to someone else? (I'm not counting the dependents 50%)
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Or alternatively draw the pension himself. Pensions are a provision for old age, not an IHT dodge.
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
The underlying principle should be that all alternatives should be taxed the same, unless there is a good policy reason.
Pensions are income tax free on the way in and investment roll up.
Draw down excess cash from pension is subject to income tax and then iht on death.
So leaving excess cash in pension should be the same but in reverse. IHT on death and the income tax on draw down.
It is the pre 75 death with income tax free subsequent draw downs which is the anomaly. Perhaps the policy intent is to try and ensure pensions are not drawn down too early?
It won't apply to me as I am already drawing my teachers pension, but if I'd died the day before retirement, could I have left my whole pension to someone else? (I'm not counting the dependents 50%)
Isn’t there a pension for surviving spouse or dependent children in cases like that?
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Or alternatively draw the pension himself. Pensions are a provision for old age, not an IHT dodge.
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
The underlying principle should be that all alternatives should be taxed the same, unless there is a good policy reason.
Pensions are income tax free on the way in and investment roll up.
Draw down excess cash from pension is subject to income tax and then iht on death.
So leaving excess cash in pension should be the same but in reverse. IHT on death and the income tax on draw down.
It is the pre 75 death with income tax free subsequent draw downs which is the anomaly. Perhaps the policy intent is to try and ensure pensions are not drawn down too early?
It won't apply to me as I am already drawing my teachers pension, but if I'd died the day before retirement, could I have left my whole pension to someone else? (I'm not counting the dependents 50%)
Isn’t there a pension for surviving spouse or dependent children in cases like that?
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Or alternatively draw the pension himself. Pensions are a provision for old age, not an IHT dodge.
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
The underlying principle should be that all alternatives should be taxed the same, unless there is a good policy reason.
Pensions are income tax free on the way in and investment roll up.
Draw down excess cash from pension is subject to income tax and then iht on death.
So leaving excess cash in pension should be the same but in reverse. IHT on death and the income tax on draw down.
It is the pre 75 death with income tax free subsequent draw downs which is the anomaly. Perhaps the policy intent is to try and ensure pensions are not drawn down too early?
It won't apply to me as I am already drawing my teachers pension, but if I'd died the day before retirement, could I have left my whole pension to someone else? (I'm not counting the dependents 50%)
Isn’t there a pension for surviving spouse or dependent children in cases like that?
Yes, the 50% I mentioned.
I suspect he's seen nothing on loopholes yet. At present it's a festival of tax avoidance.
At present he can draw it down, pay 40% tax on it, give it the kids tax free if it is "income not required for normal living expenses" (or whatever the phrase is), and I think he does not have to live for 7 years.
That loophole - the "gifts from surplus income" IHT exemption - won't last for long, I suggest.
I don't like the current Russian regime, and LOL at any ships they lose. But it can't be nice to be on a ship and to see even your bow is giving you the finger.
(Apparently two Russian ships broke up this morning in the Kerch Strait.)
could not happen to a nicer lot
Russians swarm around the UK still. Putin - 'nothing to do with us' they say. Having thought about this a little I think that all Russian citizens are responsible for Putin. Thus all Russian citizens should be booted out of the UK and generally treated as though they were Putin. This includes dual citizens.
My grandad always told me to never trust a russian.
Presumably he identified them by the snow on their boots.
The Tories' best option would be to reappoint Sunak but give up on chasing 2019 Johnson voters/2024 Farage voters and instead let Sunak be Sunak. Failing that, do the same strategy with Hunt or Mordaunt. The implosion of Starmer means that a centrist strategy is much more viable than it was at the tail end of the last Tory government.
I note the Tories have also not put a target on what immigration should be or when they’d cut the boat crossings by. Presumably, wisely learning from their past mistakes.
Pleased to see Cooper avoiding that. Promising things that are to a large extent outside your control is a mug's game.
By definition, immigration is in the controlling hands of the government. It can issue 0 visas or 1m. What is this ludicrous idea that Britain is the passive victim of global migration flows?! It’s pathetic. We have the choice
Leon we only have the choice if we can increase our birthrate. Yet mention anything that might increase our birthrate such as horror lower property prices or horror perhaps not prioritising females in the workplace and you get massive pushback. So we are where we are. If we reduced immigration massively our economy would basically collapse.
No it wouldn’t. The robots are coming
I’ve heard of two jobs in my social circle being replaced by machines this last month
It’s begun
To be fair we are a way off robots being able to work in care homes.
Depends on the task. Most people are unaware of the huge strides in robotics
Oh ive seen the tesla robots. But driverless cars were promised by now and outside certain niches still hasnt materialised.
We just had a big PB debate on this
Driverless cars are finally taking off. In SF, Waymo are now equal with Lyft and are beginning to eat Uber’s lunch. Soon they will dominate
Dominating the taxi sector is different to dominating the vehicular sector altogether.
Even if they dominate, there is no reason why taxis will replace ownership.
There's no reason why people can't or won't own their own driverless car. Having your own automated vehicle rather than relying upon other people's still enables all the creature comforts that allows people to adapt their own vehicle as they like it rather than relying upon other people's.
Sure, but it will just be you. With your very own driverless car proudly parked outside your redbrick Barratt home semi in Newent
Everyone else will think Fuck it I can save £1000s by just ordering up an autonomous electric car as and when - to use for an hour or a day or a month - why do I need this stupid thing cluttering up my drive when I can have flowers and stuff, and half the time it just sits there, depreciating
Whats wrong with redbrick Barratt homes. We cant all live in Primrose Hill.
They’re ugly af
New build estates vary.
They are often more visually pleasing than the new build estates of the 20th century.
Where? I wish it were so, I hate the uglification of the country, but the vast majority of new build estates either look mediocre or downright hideous
There are a few pleasing exceptions. The king’s stuff down in Cornwall is proper job
Horrible to live in too. Small rooms and windows, no storage space, overinsulated ugh.
Yes, they look so fucking POKY. Rabbit hutches with no natural light. UGH
They don't build this shit on the continent, why have we imposed this on ourselves?
Take a walk down any 1900s street of terraced houses - poky, rabbit hutches with no natural light.
And remember that the worst of them have since been demolished.
I doubt its much different in most of Europe, its more that middle class tourists don't tend to walk around working class areas.
Absolutely right. When you drive over the border out of Geneva you aren’t in pretty touristy France (unless sticking to the lakeside for Evian and Yvoire) - it’s working towns like Annemasse and then all the small industrial towns that pepper the landscape up to the alps.
The houses are not pretty and all have messy shitty yards and gardens where they just dump anything with low wire fences. The apartment blocks are also pretty grim.
As you said, tourists don’t see these areas which comprise the majority of countries’ built up areas.
The problem with Barratt houses is not the size. It is that the build quality is utter shit. It is utter shit compared to similar houses 40 years ago and it is utter shit compared to similar houses in the rest of Europe. They are thrown up and fited out by semi-skilled labourers who are paid the modern equivalent of piece work and who are concerned only with getting as many jobs done as possible in the alloted time. They quality control is non-existent and there is a whole new industry that has developed around correcting the mistakes and ommisions and making the properties fit to live in. Snagging doesn't even begin to cover it. There are building firms who do a far better job but the main developers are getting away withg building houses that, at the time of sale, are unfit to live in.
Unfortunately our planning system gives permission to these developers to develop large estates, while denying permission to small developments by independent could-be developers.
In Japan where permission is not required to build most development happens on demand, when and where it is needed, one house at a time.
In the UK, where permission can be got by the developers who can game the system while nonody else can, we get entire estates or nothing with no real competition.
Simply irrelevant to what I wrote as well as being factually wrong. Apart from that well done.
Entirely relevant and factually correct.
Its relevant because you complain about the "shit" developers are putting up, while defending the planning system that grants permission to those same developers while denying it to others.
Nope. The main reason continually cited by small developers for not being able to compete with the large developers is not planning but finance. There have been multiple small companies making this point. Indeedcas many of them point out, removing planning will make the situation worse for them not better.
Of course you won't listen to them because it goes against your fanatical obsession with planning
You'd probably have to introduce American-style "no jaywalking" rules on British roads to make self-driving cars a sensible proposition, and nobody wants that.
Why?
Auto braking systems (not self driving) - just “step on the brakes if something is on the road” are common and may be mandated for new cars in the near future.
You'd probably have to introduce American-style "no jaywalking" rules on British roads to make self-driving cars a sensible proposition, and nobody wants that.
Why?
Auto braking systems (not self driving) - just “step on the brakes if something is on the road” are common and may be mandated for new cars in the near future.
That reduces rather than increases the need for anti jaywalking rules.
If cars can adaptively brake as required there's less risk of collisions, and the car behind the braking car should brake too, so win/win.
Makes sharing the road space safer not more dangerous.
The Tories' best option would be to reappoint Sunak but give up on chasing 2019 Johnson voters/2024 Farage voters and instead let Sunak be Sunak. Failing that, do the same strategy with Hunt or Mordaunt. The implosion of Starmer means that a centrist strategy is much more viable than it was at the tail end of the last Tory government.
"Tesla Tops Fatal Accident Rates In New Study NHTSA data indicates that the Tesla Model Y is one of the most dangerous cars, but not for the reasons you think."
"Automotive research and data analytics firm iSeeCars said the Tesla Model Y has a fatal accident rate of more than three times the average car over a billion miles driven. The Model S is twice more likely to result in a fatal crash than the average car."
The Tories' best option would be to reappoint Sunak but give up on chasing 2019 Johnson voters/2024 Farage voters and instead let Sunak be Sunak. Failing that, do the same strategy with Hunt or Mordaunt. The implosion of Starmer means that a centrist strategy is much more viable than it was at the tail end of the last Tory government.
I note the Tories have also not put a target on what immigration should be or when they’d cut the boat crossings by. Presumably, wisely learning from their past mistakes.
Pleased to see Cooper avoiding that. Promising things that are to a large extent outside your control is a mug's game.
By definition, immigration is in the controlling hands of the government. It can issue 0 visas or 1m. What is this ludicrous idea that Britain is the passive victim of global migration flows?! It’s pathetic. We have the choice
Leon we only have the choice if we can increase our birthrate. Yet mention anything that might increase our birthrate such as horror lower property prices or horror perhaps not prioritising females in the workplace and you get massive pushback. So we are where we are. If we reduced immigration massively our economy would basically collapse.
No it wouldn’t. The robots are coming
I’ve heard of two jobs in my social circle being replaced by machines this last month
It’s begun
To be fair we are a way off robots being able to work in care homes.
Depends on the task. Most people are unaware of the huge strides in robotics
Oh ive seen the tesla robots. But driverless cars were promised by now and outside certain niches still hasnt materialised.
We just had a big PB debate on this
Driverless cars are finally taking off. In SF, Waymo are now equal with Lyft and are beginning to eat Uber’s lunch. Soon they will dominate
Dominating the taxi sector is different to dominating the vehicular sector altogether.
Even if they dominate, there is no reason why taxis will replace ownership.
There's no reason why people can't or won't own their own driverless car. Having your own automated vehicle rather than relying upon other people's still enables all the creature comforts that allows people to adapt their own vehicle as they like it rather than relying upon other people's.
Sure, but it will just be you. With your very own driverless car proudly parked outside your redbrick Barratt home semi in Newent
Everyone else will think Fuck it I can save £1000s by just ordering up an autonomous electric car as and when - to use for an hour or a day or a month - why do I need this stupid thing cluttering up my drive when I can have flowers and stuff, and half the time it just sits there, depreciating
Whats wrong with redbrick Barratt homes. We cant all live in Primrose Hill.
They’re ugly af
New build estates vary.
They are often more visually pleasing than the new build estates of the 20th century.
Where? I wish it were so, I hate the uglification of the country, but the vast majority of new build estates either look mediocre or downright hideous
There are a few pleasing exceptions. The king’s stuff down in Cornwall is proper job
Horrible to live in too. Small rooms and windows, no storage space, overinsulated ugh.
Yes, they look so fucking POKY. Rabbit hutches with no natural light. UGH
They don't build this shit on the continent, why have we imposed this on ourselves?
Take a walk down any 1900s street of terraced houses - poky, rabbit hutches with no natural light.
And remember that the worst of them have since been demolished.
I doubt its much different in most of Europe, its more that middle class tourists don't tend to walk around working class areas.
Absolutely right. When you drive over the border out of Geneva you aren’t in pretty touristy France (unless sticking to the lakeside for Evian and Yvoire) - it’s working towns like Annemasse and then all the small industrial towns that pepper the landscape up to the alps.
The houses are not pretty and all have messy shitty yards and gardens where they just dump anything with low wire fences. The apartment blocks are also pretty grim.
As you said, tourists don’t see these areas which comprise the majority of countries’ built up areas.
The problem with Barratt houses is not the size. It is that the build quality is utter shit. It is utter shit compared to similar houses 40 years ago and it is utter shit compared to similar houses in the rest of Europe. They are thrown up and fited out by semi-skilled labourers who are paid the modern equivalent of piece work and who are concerned only with getting as many jobs done as possible in the alloted time. They quality control is non-existent and there is a whole new industry that has developed around correcting the mistakes and ommisions and making the properties fit to live in. Snagging doesn't even begin to cover it. There are building firms who do a far better job but the main developers are getting away withg building houses that, at the time of sale, are unfit to live in.
Unfortunately our planning system gives permission to these developers to develop large estates, while denying permission to small developments by independent could-be developers.
In Japan where permission is not required to build most development happens on demand, when and where it is needed, one house at a time.
In the UK, where permission can be got by the developers who can game the system while nonody else can, we get entire estates or nothing with no real competition.
Simply irrelevant to what I wrote as well as being factually wrong. Apart from that well done.
Entirely relevant and factually correct.
Its relevant because you complain about the "shit" developers are putting up, while defending the planning system that grants permission to those same developers while denying it to others.
Nope. The main reason continually cited by small developers for not being able to compete with the large developers is not planning but finance. There have been multiple small companies making this point. Indeedcas many of them point out, removing planning will make the situation worse for them not better.
Of course you won't listen to them because it goes against your fanatical obsession with planning
No, a few firms cite that which you leap on as you love our planning system obstructing construction and are satisfied with the status quo.
There are many firms that don't get into developments at all because they can't get permission to do so reliably.
In country after country where planning is not the barrier it is here, small firms rather than an oligopoly get on with construction. And where firms can reliably do their work, finance follows.
Finance is more of an issue here as the small firms can't reliably get a regular series of jobs where they need permission every time. Whereas large developers with land banks of permission can get finance easier as a result.
I don't like the current Russian regime, and LOL at any ships they lose. But it can't be nice to be on a ship and to see even your bow is giving you the finger.
𝕏 stands out as the most politically balanced social media platform. Unlike many other platforms, 𝕏 has an almost equal split between Democrat (48%) and Republican (47%) news consumers. As you would expect, the data don't align with the "right-wing dominance" narrative projected by traditional media.
Instagram, TikTok and Reddit mainly consumed by Democrats and Facebook and Youtube by Republicans
𝕏 stands out as the most politically balanced social media platform. Unlike many other platforms, 𝕏 has an almost equal split between Democrat (48%) and Republican (47%) news consumers. As you would expect, the data don't align with the "right-wing dominance" narrative projected by traditional media.
Instagram, TikTok and Reddit mainly consumed by Democrats and Facebook and Youtube by Republicans
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Or alternatively draw the pension himself. Pensions are a provision for old age, not an IHT dodge.
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
The underlying principle should be that all alternatives should be taxed the same, unless there is a good policy reason.
Pensions are income tax free on the way in and investment roll up.
Draw down excess cash from pension is subject to income tax and then iht on death.
So leaving excess cash in pension should be the same but in reverse. IHT on death and the income tax on draw down.
It is the pre 75 death with income tax free subsequent draw downs which is the anomaly. Perhaps the policy intent is to try and ensure pensions are not drawn down too early?
It won't apply to me as I am already drawing my teachers pension, but if I'd died the day before retirement, could I have left my whole pension to someone else? (I'm not counting the dependents 50%)
You could leave to spouse. But in public sector generally your pension ends with you I think.
The Tories' best option would be to reappoint Sunak but give up on chasing 2019 Johnson voters/2024 Farage voters and instead let Sunak be Sunak. Failing that, do the same strategy with Hunt or Mordaunt. The implosion of Starmer means that a centrist strategy is much more viable than it was at the tail end of the last Tory government.
Labour already under 30% and LDs still under 15% leaves little room for a centrist Tory leader to squeeze much more from either.
Kemi's best hope is a hung parliament which looks possible, however if she fails to even win enough seats to do a deal with Reform to form a government the Tories best hope might ironically be JRM if he wins back a seat in Somerset as he would be the only Tory leader capable of collapsing the Reform vote again (bar Boris who CCHQ likely block from standing again). The Tories cannot progress further and have a hope of a majority with FPTP until they have done that, then if a Labour and LD minority government next time also unpopular the Conservatives post a Reform squeeze then end up the opposition by default to both
This bloke is on the wrong list. However, if true there is something enlightening about it (crops up most years, and it's always a vicar) as he is in deep deep trouble for noting the probable non-existence of Santa Claus - he will have been doing a Bayesian analysis I should think - but he was addressing a post graduate seminar of 10-11 year olds.
Can anyone confirm there really are 10-11 year olds who haven't worked this out?
I think the break point is when kids go to senior school. At infant/Junior school there is a general acceptance that no one mentions the reality even if there is a nod and a wink amongst the oldest children. Once they are going up to senior school the aim is to ensure that, even if they are still pretending to believe, they don't expose themselves to ridicule or a hard landing from the bigger kids.
But the bottom line is the vicar was being a complete arse. Particularly for someone who believes in another non existent mythical being.
A spokesperson for the Diocese of Portsmouth said: “We understand that the vicar of St Faith’s, Lee-on-the-Solent, the Rev Paul Chamberlain, was leading an RE lesson for 10- and 11-year-olds at Lee-on-Solent junior school.
“After talking about the nativity story from the Bible, he made some comments about the existence of Father Christmas.
“Paul has accepted that this was an error of judgment, and he should not have done so. He apologised unreservedly to the school, to the parents and to the children, and the headteacher immediately wrote to all parents to explain this.
“The school and diocese have worked together to address this issue, and the headteacher has now written to parents a second time, sending them Paul’s apology.”
God is real of course, as is Santa
I reckon the Rev Chamberlain should have kept his head well down. Probably made things worse now.
Santa Claus of course originated in name from Christian Bishop St Nicholas, he was an idiot and correctly apologised
Not sure what to make of this letter to Rachel Reeves in the Telegraph.
"Before your Budget, I’d have paid £200,000 inheritance tax, which is a huge amount of money in any working man’s book, but it’s arguably “fair”. However, after your Budget it’s £640,000, which is gut-wrenchingly unjust. The increase of £440,000 reflects your raid on pension funds, which doesn’t end there, as my children could pay £360,000 income tax on the balance they inherit."
Pensioner who faces £1m tax bill on his modest savings urges the Chancellor to think again
£10k would be my idea of modest savings.
modest savings my arse
First of all the chap himself won't pay it. Secondly I don't understand the calculations. Is he saying that the inheritance tax his children will pay has gone from £200,000 to £640,000 AND that the children will have to pay a further £360,000? I have to say I find that surprising.
The previous deal was no IHT on pensions but income tax was payable by the beneficiary if the death happened after 75. The new government has signalled it will include pensions in the estates for IHT after 2027 but hasn't said anything about the income tax requirement after 75. In theory this money could be taxed twice for IHT and IT. But the arrangements are still to be worked out, and I would expect potential double taxation to be excluded.
Well the solution seems fairly clear, he needs to die before 2027 for tax reasons. Where do I send the invoice?
Or alternatively draw the pension himself. Pensions are a provision for old age, not an IHT dodge.
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
The underlying principle should be that all alternatives should be taxed the same, unless there is a good policy reason.
Pensions are income tax free on the way in and investment roll up.
Draw down excess cash from pension is subject to income tax and then iht on death.
So leaving excess cash in pension should be the same but in reverse. IHT on death and the income tax on draw down.
It is the pre 75 death with income tax free subsequent draw downs which is the anomaly. Perhaps the policy intent is to try and ensure pensions are not drawn down too early?
It won't apply to me as I am already drawing my teachers pension, but if I'd died the day before retirement, could I have left my whole pension to someone else? (I'm not counting the dependents 50%)
You could leave to spouse. But in public sector generally your pension ends with you I think.
No; there is usually a spouse/dependent/partner pension. But on the same annuity model.
There is, however, often a quite separate death in service (and in early years of retirement) lump sum. This is effectivelyt a life insurance component, but if one has been lazy and failed to fill in the little bit of paper assigning it to one's spouse etc. then it gets paid into one's estate and is liable for IHT.
But all this depends on the details of the scheme, whether it is old, old new, newish new or very new ... so don't hold me to that for any particular case.
Comments
Historically US cities were built for the horse, horse and cart or coach, and people walking.
What happened is that the motor industry lobby took control of the process via US money-based rather than people-based politics, and newer areas have been designed to exclude non-motor-vehicle forms of transport in part via zoning laws starting from around 1900 - using features such as non-mixed use areas. Then it gets into a conditioning loop where Usonians lost sight of the idea that they do not have to be drones, and that they can choose how they want to live.
In older areas quite often they have literally been semi-demolished to make way for roads and parking. You don't walk the dog or the old person or the disabled relative; you put them in your truck, drive them to wherever you want to walk them, and walk them in that place. Here we still normally just walk to the local park or public footpath or multiuser trail etc, pretty much everywhere.
"Get them out of our way" jaywalking laws are part of that.
One of the more interesting things are how developing countries have over the last 2 generations in places largely adopted the crazy Usonian model, which dying. Pity Shanghai and Beijing.
*faints away dramatically*
We still define HTS as a proscribed terrorist organisation. It is far too premature to claim Syria is now "safe".
So the question is what happens with people who still have a legal right to remain here, but could potentially be tempted to return despite having a right to remain.
The Conservative leader appears to have somehow missed the 2024 election result.
By George Eaton"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2024/12/why-kemi-badenoch-keeps-misfiring
For a couple a switch from two cars to one-and-a-runabout, or to one-and-a-car-club-for-big-loads are possible, then to one-and-walk-or-cycle-locally.
Then if possible you can choose to go further.
These are models we can choose to make impossible or make possible, by how we design our built environment.
Current issues are around where dominance by motor transport removes the possibility of choice, and vested interests that benefit, or believe they benefit, from maintenance of that social setup.
We need to be intentional around creating the possibility of choices.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/15/traumatise-children-education-london-academies-schools
Mind you It was odd casting that the Brummie was played by a Londoner and the Bristolian by a Brummie.
Which is why richer and skilled immigrants are more popular than poorer and unskilled immigrants and why migrants who come to work in health and social care are more popular than those who come to wash cars.
Incidentally Starmer criticizes the Conservatives for a 'open borders experiment' even though the type of immigrants was more controlled than previously.
Having free movement with the EU again would be an actual open borders experiment.
I have my own off road parking, and every road that has been built has cycle paths.
I can ride my bike with my kids to the local park at the weekend, or I can drive to work, the choice is mine and mine alone.
No reason it needs to be all one or all the other. And by building more roads we can build infrastructure that supports both options.
Even easier if more countries offer similar schemes.
Mandy Rice Davis obviously applies, but whilst criticism of Badenoch is justified, why would 'apologising for Liz Truss' be a genius move? Would it be an amazing move for Starmer to issue an apology for Jeremy Corbyn?
Is there a god? It doesn't matter either way.
Starmer expelled Corbyn from the Party.
But I assume that they have assumed (a) inheritance tax on his pension (charge of £440k) leaving approximately £750k on which they will pay income tax as they draw it down
Federal officials are set to deploy a high-tech drone detection system to New York State as swarms of unidentified flying objects popping up in the tri-state area continue to leave experts perplexed.
I love living at 53 degrees north. In the afternoons and evenings, anyway.
A fictional TV series from over 40 years ago about some people struggling on the margins of society - criminals, unemployed, failed marriages etc.
Note also, it was the ability to work tax free which was a big inducement for Dennis, Oz etc to move to Germany - when that tax incentive is removed they decide to return.
And after all its hardly likely than any current British construction workers are going to have to emigrate to find work is it.
A better justification for freedom of movement would be that the UK is going to have to find some place to dump millions of indebted graduates whose career hopes have been destroyed by AI and globalisation.
Although given the lack of language skills among British people there's no reason to believe they would do any better elsewhere.
I am also intellectually rather shallow.
Maybe because they are flying them.
Real life Newcastle fans would never have done that.
“After talking about the nativity story from the Bible, he made some comments about the existence of Father Christmas.
“Paul has accepted that this was an error of judgment, and he should not have done so. He apologised unreservedly to the school, to the parents and to the children, and the headteacher immediately wrote to all parents to explain this.
“The school and diocese have worked together to address this issue, and the headteacher has now written to parents a second time, sending them Paul’s apology.”
God is real of course, as is Santa
It would have to be a large estate too if his allowance is all used up.
So Paddington, in a sense, was a refugee, and I do think that there’s no sadder sight than refugees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddington_Bear
Deposition hearings were coming up, with Trump due to be on oath on video being interviewed by ABC lawyers about what he understands about the difference, his alleged history of sex abuse, ogling half-naked teenage girls in the changing rooms at his beauty pageants, grabbing women by the pussy, and so on.
ABC have folded, and agreed to pay legal costs and $15m to be used in Trump's Presidential Library.
The last time this was up was when Trump sued Michael Cohen for $500m for defamation in connection with statements made. Cohen held his line, and Trump collapsed his own case the day before the hearings were to start.
Trump sued Carroll herself for defamation on rape vs sexual abuse similar grounds, and his case was rejected by the Judge.
What gives with ABC and their glass jaw?
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5040801-abc-settles-trumps-defamation-suit-for-15m/
Wasn't it Hotblack Desiato who was spending a year dead for tax reasons?
Because it was the right thing to do and helped him move the party on.
https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/israel-is-not-an-apartheid-state-says-keir-starmer-as-he-apologises-for-the-corbyn-years-god9iyh7
Its relevant because you complain about the "shit" developers are putting up, while defending the planning system that grants permission to those same developers while denying it to others.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Kb_OgL7A6uM
...On the bear's refugee status, Bond was inspired by the sight, during World War II, of Jewish refugee children from Europe arriving in Britain and of London children who were being evacuated to the countryside, the evacuees bearing luggage labels perhaps similar to that attached to the bear Paddington "Please look after this bear". Bond reflects, "They all had a label round their neck with their name and address on and a little case or package containing all their treasured possessions. So Paddington, in a sense, was a refugee, and I do think that there’s no sadder sight than refugees"...
That sort of sounds like aspiration in reality.
Pensions are income tax free on the way in and investment roll up.
Draw down excess cash from pension is subject to income tax and then iht on death.
So leaving excess cash in pension should be the same but in reverse. IHT on death and the income tax on draw down.
It is the pre 75 death with income tax free subsequent draw downs which is the anomaly. Perhaps the policy intent is to try and ensure pensions are not drawn down too early?
It's going to get binged to the end.
(I'm not counting the dependents 50%)
High class nonsense.
At present he can draw it down, pay 40% tax on it, give it the kids tax free if it is "income not required for normal living expenses" (or whatever the phrase is), and I think he does not have to live for 7 years.
That loophole - the "gifts from surplus income" IHT exemption - won't last for long, I suggest.
Former Assad regime tank is now a grocery store used by locals in Damascus.
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1868316508058722641
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trepC6pbs0M
I'll take papering over the cracks whilst we see if Amorim can conjure a supply of Polyfilla.
L L D W L D L L L L L
Bet you could have got some incredible odds on anything like that back in October.
https://x.com/SashoTodorov1/status/1868082231664877586
This occurred to me too.
Anyone but the sociopaths/psychopaths in Syria must be absolutely sick of war by now.
The Tories' best option would be to reappoint Sunak but give up on chasing 2019 Johnson voters/2024 Farage voters and instead let Sunak be Sunak. Failing that, do the same strategy with Hunt or Mordaunt. The implosion of Starmer means that a centrist strategy is much more viable than it was at the tail end of the last Tory government.
Of course you won't listen to them because it goes against your fanatical obsession with planning
If cars can adaptively brake as required there's less risk of collisions, and the car behind the braking car should brake too, so win/win.
Makes sharing the road space safer not more dangerous.
Ducks.
NHTSA data indicates that the Tesla Model Y is one of the most dangerous cars, but not for the reasons you think."
"Automotive research and data analytics firm iSeeCars said the Tesla Model Y has a fatal accident rate of more than three times the average car over a billion miles driven. The Model S is twice more likely to result in a fatal crash than the average car."
https://insideevs.com/news/741185/tesla-fatal-accident-rates-new-study-report/
There are many firms that don't get into developments at all because they can't get permission to do so reliably.
In country after country where planning is not the barrier it is here, small firms rather than an oligopoly get on with construction. And where firms can reliably do their work, finance follows.
Finance is more of an issue here as the small firms can't reliably get a regular series of jobs where they need permission every time. Whereas large developers with land banks of permission can get finance easier as a result.
You can't divorce the two.
Instagram, TikTok and Reddit mainly consumed by Democrats and Facebook and Youtube by Republicans
https://x.com/stat_sherpa/status/1867627066826400096
Kemi's best hope is a hung parliament which looks possible, however if she fails to even win enough seats to do a deal with Reform to form a government the Tories best hope might ironically be JRM if he wins back a seat in Somerset as he would be the only Tory leader capable of collapsing the Reform vote again (bar Boris who CCHQ likely block from standing again). The Tories cannot progress further and have a hope of a majority with FPTP until they have done that, then if a Labour and LD minority government next time also unpopular the Conservatives post a Reform squeeze then end up the opposition by default to both
There is, however, often a quite separate death in service (and in early years of retirement) lump sum. This is effectivelyt a life insurance component, but if one has been lazy and failed to fill in the little bit of paper assigning it to one's spouse etc. then it gets paid into one's estate and is liable for IHT.
But all this depends on the details of the scheme, whether it is old, old new, newish new or very new ... so don't hold me to that for any particular case.