"Monmouthshire council said it had conducted a comprehensive review of 20mph speed limits after residents flagged up 143 roads where they felt a return to the 30mph limit was more appropriate.
Four roads were selected to be reassessed, with the authority concluding the lower speed limits should remain in place."
That's what happens when a national campaign meets local interests. People like to drive at 30mph past other people's children, but want everyone else to do 20mph past theirs. I'm sure Barty will deride that as NIMBYism, and he'd be right tbh.
What you do not understand in Wales is that different authorities implemented the change differently with counties like Monmouth and Gwynedd imposes less than other countries especially in North Wales
Hundreds of roads are being reverted back to 30mph no matter how you try to say otherwise
Last time you mentioned "hundreds" it actually just meant roads that people like you had requested to be reverted back to 30mph. Now that the councils are reviewing them, hundreds is turning into handfuls.
For example, Conwy got 149 requests and are reviewing only 15.
Yep, exactly - though it looks like they have upped it from 15 roads to 20 "for a full assessment".
And on your second link is just a list of roads that people have requested to be changed back, not those that are. In Monmouthshire, none of the 143 requests were accepted.
But you've not provided a single iota of evidence why that is, apart from a link showing that 93% wanted it changing but it wasn't anyway.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it.
That’s quite the deal compared to the one everyone else gets for paying IHT.
Farmland prices should drop as a result of this change, which will ultimately be beneficial to UK farmers who want to actually buy land & farm it profitably.
Unfortunately they won’t drop down to the price that would make sense to farm as a going concern because of the potential for any agricultural land to be given planning permission for housing. The solution to his is for the government to take the uplift in land values from being given planning permission. I expect absolute explosions from the usual suspects when/if this gets implemented - IIRC it was hinted at in the Labour manifesto but not made explicit.
"Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it."
Fucking marvellous mate! When you inherit granny's bungalow that you have your eye on for years you won't be SAD about selling it because you don't need it to earn your living. This is the difference between inheriting a farm or a business and inheriting almost anything else. The asset is required to keep the business viable you fuckwit, and it doesnt matter that you have 10 years to pay it off because perhaps now the business is no longer viable.
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO FUCKING THICK?
Just because we don’t agree with you doesn’t make us thick. Grow up. Almost as immature as the lazy “lefties hate farmers” analysis.
Thanks for your lazy attempt to patronise me, but I'm quite grown up thanks, and having seen some of your very simplistic posts before, I think your suggestion might be a little bit of psychological projection. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when they are unable to grasp simple concepts then yeh, I will call them thick. There is no rationale to this tax change. Starmer says only a few farmers will be hit which is lie, otherwise, what the fuck is the point in doing it?
PS liked the later addition/edit to your post. Your wit caught up with the slowness of your general simplistic lefty thought process?
At the end of the day not hating farmers and not agreeing that farmers should be entitled to inherit multi million pound assets at a much lower tax rate than everyone else is a consistent position. I understand your point about the fact it’s a going concern but the reality is inheriting a going concern is a privilege in of itself. That is, unfortunately, a fact. I personally support other ways of supporting farmers and farming without the state subsidising certain people’s inheritances.
Oh dear. The point is, that what the government has done is to make many many businesses (not just farms) less viable and not be going concerns. On top of this they have burdened employment. The envy that drips from your statement "inherit multi million pound assets" sums up the misunderstanding. For most farming families it is irrelevant whether the assets are worth millions or worth £100. The asset is needs for the business to be viable. Sure, they should pay tax if they sell up and decide to live the life of a superannuated top brass civil servant (or maybe even Rachel Reeves maxing out the expenses credit card), but most do not want to do that. The whole thing is driven by spite.
You can wang on about “envy” all you want but it changes nothing. It also changes nothing whether the people inheriting the land are bothered about the value of it (which is clearly bollocks). The fact of the matter is that inheriting million of pounds of assets is an immense privilege and if these businesses cannot plan for such an event or are not viable then that’s a problem with the business (or maybe our trade policies). If you can’t see that then you are out of touch completely.
I don't think I am the one out of touch here. I seem to recall that you are perhaps not very experienced in life (my turn to be patronising). Have you ever built up a business? Employed people? Had a family? Taken risks? Continued to take financial risks for the sake of your employees? Like many others who create wealth I have done all these things. You? I suspect not. I am not out of touch sonny.
God, not the 'Gospel of the poor hard done by business owner' again, busting a gut for the sake your employees. Such altruism, eh?
"Monmouthshire council said it had conducted a comprehensive review of 20mph speed limits after residents flagged up 143 roads where they felt a return to the 30mph limit was more appropriate.
Four roads were selected to be reassessed, with the authority concluding the lower speed limits should remain in place."
That's what happens when a national campaign meets local interests. People like to drive at 30mph past other people's children, but want everyone else to do 20mph past theirs. I'm sure Barty will deride that as NIMBYism, and he'd be right tbh.
What you do not understand in Wales is that different authorities implemented the change differently with counties like Monmouth and Gwynedd imposes less than other countries especially in North Wales
Hundreds of roads are being reverted back to 30mph no matter how you try to say otherwise
Last time you mentioned "hundreds" it actually just meant roads that people like you had requested to be reverted back to 30mph. Now that the councils are reviewing them, hundreds is turning into handfuls.
For example, Conwy got 149 requests and are reviewing only 15.
Yep, exactly - though it looks like they have upped it from 15 roads to 20 "for a full assessment".
And on your second link is just a list of roads that people have requested to be changed back, not those that are. In Monmouthshire, none of the 143 requests were accepted.
You are blinded by your own obsession and frankly have become boring on the subject
Come back when all the roads have been changed and then make an argument if you can
Alex Burghart is my MP now and a traditional Tory of the old school and good constituency MP but he was an early backer of Badenoch and is more interested being her Keith Joseph than leader. If she did go and lost a VONC, which is unlikely, it would be her Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride or Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip who most likely replaced her
Both utter no hopers.
Are you just not wanting to get excited that you might get Jenrick? I guess it's difficult after so many setbacks.
“Take a look at President Trump. He’s shown that sometimes you need that first stint in government to spot the problems, but it’s the second time around that you really know how to fix them.”
Trump is dismantling US democracy and replacing it with authoritarianism.
Careful thought is needed when using Trump as a positive example for much of the UK, even where he does something the average person might agree with (IDK, like stopping the printing of pennies).
I'd say a lobotomy is needed if using Trump as a positive example for the UK or indeed anywhere.
So do I. You cannot tell me that there's not a vast mountain of waste to cut through before a penny more in taxes on top of their current eye-watering levels is needed. Any more taxes and we won't have an economy to pay the taxes.
On my first day in office, I met the then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. He told me that his most difficult problem was finding me an office. (He never did.) That set the tone of the Treasury’s approach to confronting waste.
I did manage to cancel 33 government property leases in London, which saved about £1 billion (only £199 billion to go!). But the biggest termination of all, signed and sealed by two cabinet ministers and myself, was overturned after I left (102 Petty France, overlooking St James’s Park). Why?Simply because the civil servants didn’t want to lose the lovely view.
Last week the government answered a written parliamentary question on the amount of overpayments made through Universal Credit, which amounts to nearly £6 billion a year. And yet at the same time they have introduced a controversial death tax on farmers which might generate a tenth of that. The truth is, it is much easier for the administrative machine to slam in a new tax than do the difficult work of running the state more effectively.
And so it goes on. This organisation needs to get the Doge treatment and then some - and that's before we even start on the quangocracy.
There's not a vast mountain of waste.
There is a massive perceived mountain of waste. But not an actual massive mountain of waste.
I don't agree. There are very real and concrete examples of massive toe curling waste in every Government department that I can think of. And that is, as I say, before you get to the quangos. Theodore Agnew who is quoted above (and he would know) estimates unproductive spending at £200bn, with the largest single portion of it (£50bn) fraud, of which he says £30bn is recoverable. These are not small figures - budgets have been reversed over less.
I don't really know how much waste there is, at a good bet more than those decrying finding it think, and less than those who think pretty much everything is waste believe.
There's a real danger of 'eliminating waste' being the new 'bankers bonuses' in funding everything we want to do.
But the 'lazy assumption' these days is not that there's a mountain of waste, it's wise shrewdies sagely nodding their heads and telling us we're going to have to just put up with the cost of the state and if we want lower taxes we'll have to sacrifice cancer surgery. It is glib, ignorant nonsense.
Reality - i.e. where the government actually spends its money - should probably have a say, no?
Follow 🇧🇷🇨🇳 American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer, - The Economist
China has already said, like European and Canadian NATO members, there can be no ceasefire deal without Ukrainian agreement anyway
I've just read Kemi's speech. It's fucking awful. If I were a Tory, I'd be in despair. To give just one of many examples: she berates political debate for focusing on trivia. Then she repeats a (fake) anecdote about chicken nuggets. Unbelievable.
She's incredibly immature.
Not ready for prime time. As I have said numerous times. It's Hague all over again. Only worse.
Shame frankly because I think she has a lot to offer and a stint in one of the great offices of state in 2030s followed by running for leader and PM might well have worked out.
“Take a look at President Trump. He’s shown that sometimes you need that first stint in government to spot the problems, but it’s the second time around that you really know how to fix them.”
Trump is dismantling US democracy and replacing it with authoritarianism.
Careful thought is needed when using Trump as a positive example for much of the UK, even where he does something the average person might agree with (IDK, like stopping the printing of pennies).
I'd say a lobotomy is needed if using Trump as a positive example for the UK or indeed anywhere.
It was more of a hypothetical point - even if he did something good, a lot of people would be hesitant if it was sold to them as a Trump policy.
“Take a look at President Trump. He’s shown that sometimes you need that first stint in government to spot the problems, but it’s the second time around that you really know how to fix them.”
Trump is dismantling US democracy and replacing it with authoritarianism.
He realised first time around the problem was the administrative and legal system wouldn't allow him to follow his bizarre fantasies, so this time he's making sure he eliminates them quickly.
She's somehow managing to make Rishi Sunak look like a political giant.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it.
That’s quite the deal compared to the one everyone else gets for paying IHT.
Farmland prices should drop as a result of this change, which will ultimately be beneficial to UK farmers who want to actually buy land & farm it profitably.
Unfortunately they won’t drop down to the price that would make sense to farm as a going concern because of the potential for any agricultural land to be given planning permission for housing. The solution to his is for the government to take the uplift in land values from being given planning permission. I expect absolute explosions from the usual suspects when/if this gets implemented - IIRC it was hinted at in the Labour manifesto but not made explicit.
Assume it was this bit?
"fair compensation rather than inflated prices"
Needs to be seen if they mean ag value, will a land agent calculate it without development potential?
Clearly there is a significant amount of housing to be built to accommodate the UK's growing population.
I think a lot of land will free up over the next 5 years with stealth due to a number of issues, tax being one of them. Retirement will free a lot of land up. Can't blame the younger generation if they don't want to farm
Nobody asking why people are having children they can't afford to look after.
If you are poor, three children gets you a chance of a 3-bed house with garden on social housing. Two children or fewer means you're probably stuck in a high rise 2 bed flat. No children, probably no points for social housing.
Good evening everybody.
Having dealt with some of these issues at the coal face, your comments seem somewhat out of place. 3 children doesn't mean 3 bedrooms as there are set calculations based on age and sex of the children. Secondly, it will also depend on whether you have ties to the community. You will get on a list but the position on the list will be determined by how many other families score higher than you. In areas of high demand, usually the South East, you may spend many years in (quite run down) temporary accommodation which is not covered by the Decent Homes Standard. Alternatively you'll be helped to find private rented accommodation which again won't be covered by the Decent Homes Standard (until the RRB comes into play.
Many tenants playing the game you suggest they are playing come unstuck when faced with the reality of the UK's housing market. The solution is to build more.
As an aside, no one ever thinks they can afford children. It's not an economic decision.
My comments are sourced from the experience of people in my social circle.
Alex Burghart is my MP now and a traditional Tory of the old school and good constituency MP but he was an early backer of Badenoch and is more interested being her Keith Joseph than leader. If she did go and lost a VONC, which is unlikely, it would be her Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride or Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip who most likely replaced her
The Tory party is in a diabolical mess. It really could vanish (as if my magic) simply due to the quite poor standards of the people that have been projected to the forefront. Badenoch is I think better than the chummy-useless-crowd, but you look at all of them and worry.
So do I. You cannot tell me that there's not a vast mountain of waste to cut through before a penny more in taxes on top of their current eye-watering levels is needed. Any more taxes and we won't have an economy to pay the taxes.
On my first day in office, I met the then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. He told me that his most difficult problem was finding me an office. (He never did.) That set the tone of the Treasury’s approach to confronting waste.
I did manage to cancel 33 government property leases in London, which saved about £1 billion (only £199 billion to go!). But the biggest termination of all, signed and sealed by two cabinet ministers and myself, was overturned after I left (102 Petty France, overlooking St James’s Park). Why?Simply because the civil servants didn’t want to lose the lovely view.
Last week the government answered a written parliamentary question on the amount of overpayments made through Universal Credit, which amounts to nearly £6 billion a year. And yet at the same time they have introduced a controversial death tax on farmers which might generate a tenth of that. The truth is, it is much easier for the administrative machine to slam in a new tax than do the difficult work of running the state more effectively.
And so it goes on. This organisation needs to get the Doge treatment and then some - and that's before we even start on the quangocracy.
There's not a vast mountain of waste.
There is a massive perceived mountain of waste. But not an actual massive mountain of waste.
I don't agree. There are very real and concrete examples of massive toe curling waste in every Government department that I can think of. And that is, as I say, before you get to the quangos. Theodore Agnew who is quoted above (and he would know) estimates unproductive spending at £200bn, with the largest single portion of it (£50bn) fraud, of which he says £30bn is recoverable. These are not small figures - budgets have been reversed over less.
I don't really know how much waste there is, at a good bet more than those decrying finding it think, and less than those who think pretty much everything is waste believe.
There's a real danger of 'eliminating waste' being the new 'bankers bonuses' in funding everything we want to do.
But the 'lazy assumption' these days is not that there's a mountain of waste, it's wise shrewdies sagely nodding their heads and telling us we're going to have to just put up with the cost of the state and if we want lower taxes we'll have to sacrifice cancer surgery. It is glib, ignorant nonsense.
Reality - i.e. where the government actually spends its money - should probably have a say, no?
Reality is just a smokescreen invented by the ruling elite.
“Take a look at President Trump. He’s shown that sometimes you need that first stint in government to spot the problems, but it’s the second time around that you really know how to fix them.”
Trump is dismantling US democracy and replacing it with authoritarianism.
He realised first time around the problem was the administrative and legal system wouldn't allow him to follow his bizarre fantasies, so this time he's making sure he eliminates them quickly.
She's somehow managing to make Rishi Sunak look like a political giant.
Nadine might be right. Both Alex and Claire went to Oxford, which is what counts. One did sums like Liz and the other is a former history teacher who wrote for the Spectator.
Non Oxbridge IDS was replaced by Cambridge Howard. Major was non Oxford and stayed leader for 7 years but he won a general election outright in 1992. Disraeli also won in 1874 which secured him despite being a non Oxford leader. Churchill was non Oxford too and was party leader for 11 years until he won a general election, though he had been to Harrow and also led the UK to victory in WW2
Calgie @christiancalgie NEW: Kemi Badenoch says that Elon Musk's DOGE-style approach to cutting government waste is not "radical enough" for Britain.
She says: "Looking at what we're spending on welfare, looking at so much waste, a lot of nonsense that government does. It's too big. We need smaller government, smarter spending."
Trump: Elon is going to raze the federal government to the ground.
Badenoch: I'd do more.
So Kemi, why didn't you and your chums do it between 2010 and 2024 when, you know, you were in government?
Also, Kemi, you opposed the cuts to the Winter Fuel Allowance. Isn't that the epitome of "wasteful" nice to have spending that goes to a lot who don't strictly need it?
To be fair she backed means testing it but for higher incomes
So do I. You cannot tell me that there's not a vast mountain of waste to cut through before a penny more in taxes on top of their current eye-watering levels is needed. Any more taxes and we won't have an economy to pay the taxes.
On my first day in office, I met the then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. He told me that his most difficult problem was finding me an office. (He never did.) That set the tone of the Treasury’s approach to confronting waste.
I did manage to cancel 33 government property leases in London, which saved about £1 billion (only £199 billion to go!). But the biggest termination of all, signed and sealed by two cabinet ministers and myself, was overturned after I left (102 Petty France, overlooking St James’s Park). Why?Simply because the civil servants didn’t want to lose the lovely view.
Last week the government answered a written parliamentary question on the amount of overpayments made through Universal Credit, which amounts to nearly £6 billion a year. And yet at the same time they have introduced a controversial death tax on farmers which might generate a tenth of that. The truth is, it is much easier for the administrative machine to slam in a new tax than do the difficult work of running the state more effectively.
And so it goes on. This organisation needs to get the Doge treatment and then some - and that's before we even start on the quangocracy.
There's not a vast mountain of waste.
There is a massive perceived mountain of waste. But not an actual massive mountain of waste.
I don't agree. There are very real and concrete examples of massive toe curling waste in every Government department that I can think of. And that is, as I say, before you get to the quangos. Theodore Agnew who is quoted above (and he would know) estimates unproductive spending at £200bn, with the largest single portion of it (£50bn) fraud, of which he says £30bn is recoverable. These are not small figures - budgets have been reversed over less.
I don't really know how much waste there is, at a good bet more than those decrying finding it think, and less than those who think pretty much everything is waste believe.
There's a real danger of 'eliminating waste' being the new 'bankers bonuses' in funding everything we want to do.
But the 'lazy assumption' these days is not that there's a mountain of waste, it's wise shrewdies sagely nodding their heads and telling us we're going to have to just put up with the cost of the state and if we want lower taxes we'll have to sacrifice cancer surgery. It is glib, ignorant nonsense.
Reality - i.e. where the government actually spends its money - should probably have a say, no?
But it won't. They'll raise taxes on wages. Crudely, an immediate 5p rise in the basic rate of income tax would generate about £33bn per year based on the latest Treasury estimates, which is around the amount needed to match American defence spending as a percentage of GDP. In reality, they'd struggle to spend an immediate increment of that size usefully, so it'll probably come in several tranches and they might use a combination of income tax and employee NI hikes, which would have fairly similar effects.
Nadine might be right. Both Alex and Claire went to Oxford, which is what counts. One did sums like Liz and the other is a former history teacher who wrote for the Spectator.
Non Oxbridge IDS was replaced by Cambridge Howard. Major was non Oxford and stayed leader for 7 years but he won a general election outright in 1992. Disraeli also won in 1874 which secured him despite being a non Oxford leader. Churchill was non Oxford too and was party leader for 11 years until he won a general election, though he had been to Harrow and also led the UK to victory in WW2
Fun fact:
Only Cambridge educated Tory leader to win a GE was Stanley Baldwin.
So do I. You cannot tell me that there's not a vast mountain of waste to cut through before a penny more in taxes on top of their current eye-watering levels is needed. Any more taxes and we won't have an economy to pay the taxes.
On my first day in office, I met the then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. He told me that his most difficult problem was finding me an office. (He never did.) That set the tone of the Treasury’s approach to confronting waste.
I did manage to cancel 33 government property leases in London, which saved about £1 billion (only £199 billion to go!). But the biggest termination of all, signed and sealed by two cabinet ministers and myself, was overturned after I left (102 Petty France, overlooking St James’s Park). Why?Simply because the civil servants didn’t want to lose the lovely view.
Last week the government answered a written parliamentary question on the amount of overpayments made through Universal Credit, which amounts to nearly £6 billion a year. And yet at the same time they have introduced a controversial death tax on farmers which might generate a tenth of that. The truth is, it is much easier for the administrative machine to slam in a new tax than do the difficult work of running the state more effectively.
And so it goes on. This organisation needs to get the Doge treatment and then some - and that's before we even start on the quangocracy.
There's not a vast mountain of waste.
There is a massive perceived mountain of waste. But not an actual massive mountain of waste.
I don't agree. There are very real and concrete examples of massive toe curling waste in every Government department that I can think of. And that is, as I say, before you get to the quangos. Theodore Agnew who is quoted above (and he would know) estimates unproductive spending at £200bn, with the largest single portion of it (£50bn) fraud, of which he says £30bn is recoverable. These are not small figures - budgets have been reversed over less.
I don't really know how much waste there is, at a good bet more than those decrying finding it think, and less than those who think pretty much everything is waste believe.
There's a real danger of 'eliminating waste' being the new 'bankers bonuses' in funding everything we want to do.
But the 'lazy assumption' these days is not that there's a mountain of waste, it's wise shrewdies sagely nodding their heads and telling us we're going to have to just put up with the cost of the state and if we want lower taxes we'll have to sacrifice cancer surgery. It is glib, ignorant nonsense.
Should we be be more willing to make tough, deep, cuts on some spending? Probably.
But is an automatic assumption we cannot cut back inherently worse than an automatic assumption we can? Shouldn't we aim to be more open to doing it, and properly investigate, and see what is possible? (and not juast assume it is not).
On assupmptions take a story on Guido today about a civil service training contract for£570m. Is that way too much for the specific service being offered? Maybe it is. But the story's assumption is that the entire amount is worthless. It's presented as an article of faith that none of it can be worth anything (perhaps the report they link to on it is more nuanced).
See also a similar attitude to homeworking (something I personally do not like to do). Is office working more productive? Again, perhaps it is, let's assume so for sake of argument. But does it therefore make sense to portray anyone not office working literally slacking off the entire time and doing nothing? As that argument gets made often.
I get frustration if we are not as a nation really giving the idea of cutting waste a proper assessment. I can believe there's something to that. But whilst you may not be, plenty of commentators will probably just go 'I dislike X, therefore we can cut all of it to spend on Y'.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it.
That’s quite the deal compared to the one everyone else gets for paying IHT.
Farmland prices should drop as a result of this change, which will ultimately be beneficial to UK farmers who want to actually buy land & farm it profitably.
Unfortunately they won’t drop down to the price that would make sense to farm as a going concern because of the potential for any agricultural land to be given planning permission for housing. The solution to his is for the government to take the uplift in land values from being given planning permission. I expect absolute explosions from the usual suspects when/if this gets implemented - IIRC it was hinted at in the Labour manifesto but not made explicit.
"Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it."
Fucking marvellous mate! When you inherit granny's bungalow that you have your eye on for years you won't be SAD about selling it because you don't need it to earn your living. This is the difference between inheriting a farm or a business and inheriting almost anything else. The asset is required to keep the business viable you fuckwit, and it doesnt matter that you have 10 years to pay it off because perhaps now the business is no longer viable.
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO FUCKING THICK?
Just because we don’t agree with you doesn’t make us thick. Grow up. Almost as immature as the lazy “lefties hate farmers” analysis.
Thanks for your lazy attempt to patronise me, but I'm quite grown up thanks, and having seen some of your very simplistic posts before, I think your suggestion might be a little bit of psychological projection. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when they are unable to grasp simple concepts then yeh, I will call them thick. There is no rationale to this tax change. Starmer says only a few farmers will be hit which is lie, otherwise, what the fuck is the point in doing it?
PS liked the later addition/edit to your post. Your wit caught up with the slowness of your general simplistic lefty thought process?
At the end of the day not hating farmers and not agreeing that farmers should be entitled to inherit multi million pound assets at a much lower tax rate than everyone else is a consistent position. I understand your point about the fact it’s a going concern but the reality is inheriting a going concern is a privilege in of itself. That is, unfortunately, a fact. I personally support other ways of supporting farmers and farming without the state subsidising certain people’s inheritances.
Oh dear. The point is, that what the government has done is to make many many businesses (not just farms) less viable and not be going concerns. On top of this they have burdened employment. The envy that drips from your statement "inherit multi million pound assets" sums up the misunderstanding. For most farming families it is irrelevant whether the assets are worth millions or worth £100. The asset is needs for the business to be viable. Sure, they should pay tax if they sell up and decide to live the life of a superannuated top brass civil servant (or maybe even Rachel Reeves maxing out the expenses credit card), but most do not want to do that. The whole thing is driven by spite.
You can wang on about “envy” all you want but it changes nothing. It also changes nothing whether the people inheriting the land are bothered about the value of it (which is clearly bollocks). The fact of the matter is that inheriting million of pounds of assets is an immense privilege and if these businesses cannot plan for such an event or are not viable then that’s a problem with the business (or maybe our trade policies). If you can’t see that then you are out of touch completely.
I don't think I am the one out of touch here. I seem to recall that you are perhaps not very experienced in life (my turn to be patronising). Have you ever built up a business? Employed people? Had a family? Taken risks? Continued to take financial risks for the sake of your employees? Like many others who create wealth I have done all these things. You? I suspect not. I am not out of touch sonny.
God, not the 'Gospel of the poor hard done by business owner' again, busting a gut for the sake your employees. Such altruism, eh?
State of this. It's the Starmer (economic) death cult.
"Monmouthshire council said it had conducted a comprehensive review of 20mph speed limits after residents flagged up 143 roads where they felt a return to the 30mph limit was more appropriate.
Four roads were selected to be reassessed, with the authority concluding the lower speed limits should remain in place."
That's what happens when a national campaign meets local interests. People like to drive at 30mph past other people's children, but want everyone else to do 20mph past theirs. I'm sure Barty will deride that as NIMBYism, and he'd be right tbh.
What you do not understand in Wales is that different authorities implemented the change differently with counties like Monmouth and Gwynedd imposes less than other countries especially in North Wales
Hundreds of roads are being reverted back to 30mph no matter how you try to say otherwise
Last time you mentioned "hundreds" it actually just meant roads that people like you had requested to be reverted back to 30mph. Now that the councils are reviewing them, hundreds is turning into handfuls.
For example, Conwy got 149 requests and are reviewing only 15.
Yep, exactly - though it looks like they have upped it from 15 roads to 20 "for a full assessment".
And on your second link is just a list of roads that people have requested to be changed back, not those that are. In Monmouthshire, none of the 143 requests were accepted.
But you've not provided a single iota of evidence why that is, apart from a link showing that 93% wanted it changing but it wasn't anyway.
93% of people who responded to the consultation.
I'd have thought you'd be entirely onside with overriding the wishes of people who sign petitions and launch petitions, given your very strong views on doing that to people who do the same for newts and bats etc etc
Has there been any recent comment from Turkey and how it thinks of the future of Ukraine and peace talks and terms? I would imagine, as a big power in the region they would have some strong opinions and should/could be involved in the peace but I haven’t seen any reporting on their position (to be honest I haven’t really looked that hard either).
"Monmouthshire council said it had conducted a comprehensive review of 20mph speed limits after residents flagged up 143 roads where they felt a return to the 30mph limit was more appropriate.
Four roads were selected to be reassessed, with the authority concluding the lower speed limits should remain in place."
That's what happens when a national campaign meets local interests. People like to drive at 30mph past other people's children, but want everyone else to do 20mph past theirs. I'm sure Barty will deride that as NIMBYism, and he'd be right tbh.
What you do not understand in Wales is that different authorities implemented the change differently with counties like Monmouth and Gwynedd imposes less than other countries especially in North Wales
Hundreds of roads are being reverted back to 30mph no matter how you try to say otherwise
Last time you mentioned "hundreds" it actually just meant roads that people like you had requested to be reverted back to 30mph. Now that the councils are reviewing them, hundreds is turning into handfuls.
For example, Conwy got 149 requests and are reviewing only 15.
Yep, exactly - though it looks like they have upped it from 15 roads to 20 "for a full assessment".
And on your second link is just a list of roads that people have requested to be changed back, not those that are. In Monmouthshire, none of the 143 requests were accepted.
You are blinded by your own obsession and frankly have become boring on the subject
Come back when all the roads have been changed and then make an argument if you can
It would help if you didn't post links that supported my point.
All of the roads?! 0% in Monmouthshire. Maximum 14% in Conwy.
Alex Burghart is my MP now and a traditional Tory of the old school and good constituency MP but he was an early backer of Badenoch and is more interested being her Keith Joseph than leader. If she did go and lost a VONC, which is unlikely, it would be her Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride or Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip who most likely replaced her
The Tory party is in a diabolical mess. It really could vanish (as if my magic) simply due to the quite poor standards of the people that have been projected to the forefront. Badenoch is I think better than the chummy-useless-crowd, but you look at all of them and worry.
Sounds like your MP is a bit daft.
They are at more risk than they seem to think they are. Worth remembering that by a lot of polls they could have ended up with sub-100 MPs.
I've just read Kemi's speech. It's fucking awful. If I were a Tory, I'd be in despair. To give just one of many examples: she berates political debate for focusing on trivia. Then she repeats a (fake) anecdote about chicken nuggets. Unbelievable.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
Only somebody who is thick as pigshit would prefer Putin over Starmer.
Clarkson admit he only became a farmer for the tax benefits.
We need all the revenue to help fund our defence budgets for rearmament.
Not much use if we have none of our own grown food and starve to death during war in Europe and tariff wars with Trump’s US
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it.
That’s quite the deal compared to the one everyone else gets for paying IHT.
Farmland prices should drop as a result of this change, which will ultimately be beneficial to UK farmers who want to actually buy land & farm it profitably.
Unfortunately they won’t drop down to the price that would make sense to farm as a going concern because of the potential for any agricultural land to be given planning permission for housing. The solution to his is for the government to take the uplift in land values from being given planning permission. I expect absolute explosions from the usual suspects when/if this gets implemented - IIRC it was hinted at in the Labour manifesto but not made explicit.
"Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it."
Fucking marvellous mate! When you inherit granny's bungalow that you have your eye on for years you won't be SAD about selling it because you don't need it to earn your living. This is the difference between inheriting a farm or a business and inheriting almost anything else. The asset is required to keep the business viable you fuckwit, and it doesnt matter that you have 10 years to pay it off because perhaps now the business is no longer viable.
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO FUCKING THICK?
Just because we don’t agree with you doesn’t make us thick. Grow up. Almost as immature as the lazy “lefties hate farmers” analysis.
Thanks for your lazy attempt to patronise me, but I'm quite grown up thanks, and having seen some of your very simplistic posts before, I think your suggestion might be a little bit of psychological projection. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when they are unable to grasp simple concepts then yeh, I will call them thick. There is no rationale to this tax change. Starmer says only a few farmers will be hit which is lie, otherwise, what the fuck is the point in doing it?
PS liked the later addition/edit to your post. Your wit caught up with the slowness of your general simplistic lefty thought process?
At the end of the day not hating farmers and not agreeing that farmers should be entitled to inherit multi million pound assets at a much lower tax rate than everyone else is a consistent position. I understand your point about the fact it’s a going concern but the reality is inheriting a going concern is a privilege in of itself. That is, unfortunately, a fact. I personally support other ways of supporting farmers and farming without the state subsidising certain people’s inheritances.
Oh dear. The point is, that what the government has done is to make many many businesses (not just farms) less viable and not be going concerns. On top of this they have burdened employment. The envy that drips from your statement "inherit multi million pound assets" sums up the misunderstanding. For most farming families it is irrelevant whether the assets are worth millions or worth £100. The asset is needs for the business to be viable. Sure, they should pay tax if they sell up and decide to live the life of a superannuated top brass civil servant (or maybe even Rachel Reeves maxing out the expenses credit card), but most do not want to do that. The whole thing is driven by spite.
You can wang on about “envy” all you want but it changes nothing. It also changes nothing whether the people inheriting the land are bothered about the value of it (which is clearly bollocks). The fact of the matter is that inheriting million of pounds of assets is an immense privilege and if these businesses cannot plan for such an event or are not viable then that’s a problem with the business (or maybe our trade policies). If you can’t see that then you are out of touch completely.
I don't think I am the one out of touch here. I seem to recall that you are perhaps not very experienced in life (my turn to be patronising). Have you ever built up a business? Employed people? Had a family? Taken risks? Continued to take financial risks for the sake of your employees? Like many others who create wealth I have done all these things. You? I suspect not. I am not out of touch sonny.
God, not the 'Gospel of the poor hard done by business owner' again, busting a gut for the sake your employees. Such altruism, eh?
State of this. It's the Starmer (economic) death cult.
The only surprise about that number is that it isn't higher. As per usual, most people think that everything should be paid for by someone else.
Nonetheless, taxes will have to go up, because there is precious little left that the Government dare cut and it can't allow borrowing to balloon. That would violate the Chancellor's fiscal rules, and the risk is it would wreck the Treasury's reputation with Britain's creditors and make borrowing too expensive in any case. We also have to remember that, beyond defence, the state pension bill is accelerating out of control and the Government will be forced to offer above inflation pay settlements to the public sector, or else they'll simply go back on strike and wreck any attempts to meet targets on cutting hospital waiting times, for example. This is all going to be very expensive.
So, once it runs out of options, Labour will ramp income tax and national insurance. Because, as with the Tories, when push comes to shove and they have to raise tax they'll always prioritise earnings over assets, wages over wealth. They're not so dissimilar from what went before really. They should be called the Capital Party.
44% of Britons think government expenditure can be cut by 20% or more without affecting either service delivery or the wider economy.
Alex Burghart is my MP now and a traditional Tory of the old school and good constituency MP but he was an early backer of Badenoch and is more interested being her Keith Joseph than leader. If she did go and lost a VONC, which is unlikely, it would be her Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride or Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip who most likely replaced her
Interesting that Labour came 3rd in this seat last time.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
I completely agree. Farms have been used as tax havens by some, but the percentage is tiny. HMRC could easily put in rules to distinguish between proper working farms and those that have been used as tax havens, but the current government would rather hammer farmers because they don't generally vote Labour.
I would prefer them to tax people with massive public sector pension pots, or better still silver-spooned millionaire city lawyers and accountants that hide behind dodgy LLP structures where they pretend to be "partners" and "self employed" where most of them couldn't start a company for themselves if their featherbedded life depended on it.
Starmer won’t tax public sector Labour voters or his fellow lawyers more nor will Rachel from accounts tax her own.
Tory and Reform voting farmers and small business owners and pensioners are fair game though
"Monmouthshire council said it had conducted a comprehensive review of 20mph speed limits after residents flagged up 143 roads where they felt a return to the 30mph limit was more appropriate.
Four roads were selected to be reassessed, with the authority concluding the lower speed limits should remain in place."
That's what happens when a national campaign meets local interests. People like to drive at 30mph past other people's children, but want everyone else to do 20mph past theirs. I'm sure Barty will deride that as NIMBYism, and he'd be right tbh.
What you do not understand in Wales is that different authorities implemented the change differently with counties like Monmouth and Gwynedd imposes less than other countries especially in North Wales
Hundreds of roads are being reverted back to 30mph no matter how you try to say otherwise
Last time you mentioned "hundreds" it actually just meant roads that people like you had requested to be reverted back to 30mph. Now that the councils are reviewing them, hundreds is turning into handfuls.
For example, Conwy got 149 requests and are reviewing only 15.
Yep, exactly - though it looks like they have upped it from 15 roads to 20 "for a full assessment".
And on your second link is just a list of roads that people have requested to be changed back, not those that are. In Monmouthshire, none of the 143 requests were accepted.
But you've not provided a single iota of evidence why that is, apart from a link showing that 93% wanted it changing but it wasn't anyway.
93% of people who responded to the consultation.
I'd have thought you'd be entirely onside with overriding the wishes of people who sign petitions and launch petitions, given your very strong views on doing that to people who do the same for newts and bats etc etc
I'd be ok with abolishing such consultations and crap, yes. I'm bemused though by your citing a consultation where 93% favoured change as proof that change is unpopular.
The politicians have done what they wanted to do and ignored the consultation. So why they bothered with it in the first place is beyond me.
Oh and my view is that we should take power away from politicians and petitioners alike and let people do liberally as they damn please. I don't favour letting small busybodies in local politics make decisions for everyone, I'd sooner see local councils abolished or at least stripped of most of their powers to be handed back to individuals.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it.
That’s quite the deal compared to the one everyone else gets for paying IHT.
Farmland prices should drop as a result of this change, which will ultimately be beneficial to UK farmers who want to actually buy land & farm it profitably.
Unfortunately they won’t drop down to the price that would make sense to farm as a going concern because of the potential for any agricultural land to be given planning permission for housing. The solution to his is for the government to take the uplift in land values from being given planning permission. I expect absolute explosions from the usual suspects when/if this gets implemented - IIRC it was hinted at in the Labour manifesto but not made explicit.
"Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it."
Fucking marvellous mate! When you inherit granny's bungalow that you have your eye on for years you won't be SAD about selling it because you don't need it to earn your living. This is the difference between inheriting a farm or a business and inheriting almost anything else. The asset is required to keep the business viable you fuckwit, and it doesnt matter that you have 10 years to pay it off because perhaps now the business is no longer viable.
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO FUCKING THICK?
Just because we don’t agree with you doesn’t make us thick. Grow up. Almost as immature as the lazy “lefties hate farmers” analysis.
Thanks for your lazy attempt to patronise me, but I'm quite grown up thanks, and having seen some of your very simplistic posts before, I think your suggestion might be a little bit of psychological projection. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when they are unable to grasp simple concepts then yeh, I will call them thick. There is no rationale to this tax change. Starmer says only a few farmers will be hit which is lie, otherwise, what the fuck is the point in doing it?
PS liked the later addition/edit to your post. Your wit caught up with the slowness of your general simplistic lefty thought process?
At the end of the day not hating farmers and not agreeing that farmers should be entitled to inherit multi million pound assets at a much lower tax rate than everyone else is a consistent position. I understand your point about the fact it’s a going concern but the reality is inheriting a going concern is a privilege in of itself. That is, unfortunately, a fact. I personally support other ways of supporting farmers and farming without the state subsidising certain people’s inheritances.
Oh dear. The point is, that what the government has done is to make many many businesses (not just farms) less viable and not be going concerns. On top of this they have burdened employment. The envy that drips from your statement "inherit multi million pound assets" sums up the misunderstanding. For most farming families it is irrelevant whether the assets are worth millions or worth £100. The asset is needs for the business to be viable. Sure, they should pay tax if they sell up and decide to live the life of a superannuated top brass civil servant (or maybe even Rachel Reeves maxing out the expenses credit card), but most do not want to do that. The whole thing is driven by spite.
You can wang on about “envy” all you want but it changes nothing. It also changes nothing whether the people inheriting the land are bothered about the value of it (which is clearly bollocks). The fact of the matter is that inheriting million of pounds of assets is an immense privilege and if these businesses cannot plan for such an event or are not viable then that’s a problem with the business (or maybe our trade policies). If you can’t see that then you are out of touch completely.
I don't think I am the one out of touch here. I seem to recall that you are perhaps not very experienced in life (my turn to be patronising). Have you ever built up a business? Employed people? Had a family? Taken risks? Continued to take financial risks for the sake of your employees? Like many others who create wealth I have done all these things. You? I suspect not. I am not out of touch sonny.
God, not the 'Gospel of the poor hard done by business owner' again, busting a gut for the sake your employees. Such altruism, eh?
State of this. It's the Starmer (economic) death cult.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it.
That’s quite the deal compared to the one everyone else gets for paying IHT.
Farmland prices should drop as a result of this change, which will ultimately be beneficial to UK farmers who want to actually buy land & farm it profitably.
Unfortunately they won’t drop down to the price that would make sense to farm as a going concern because of the potential for any agricultural land to be given planning permission for housing. The solution to his is for the government to take the uplift in land values from being given planning permission. I expect absolute explosions from the usual suspects when/if this gets implemented - IIRC it was hinted at in the Labour manifesto but not made explicit.
"Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it."
Fucking marvellous mate! When you inherit granny's bungalow that you have your eye on for years you won't be SAD about selling it because you don't need it to earn your living. This is the difference between inheriting a farm or a business and inheriting almost anything else. The asset is required to keep the business viable you fuckwit, and it doesnt matter that you have 10 years to pay it off because perhaps now the business is no longer viable.
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO FUCKING THICK?
Just because we don’t agree with you doesn’t make us thick. Grow up. Almost as immature as the lazy “lefties hate farmers” analysis.
Thanks for your lazy attempt to patronise me, but I'm quite grown up thanks, and having seen some of your very simplistic posts before, I think your suggestion might be a little bit of psychological projection. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when they are unable to grasp simple concepts then yeh, I will call them thick. There is no rationale to this tax change. Starmer says only a few farmers will be hit which is lie, otherwise, what the fuck is the point in doing it?
PS liked the later addition/edit to your post. Your wit caught up with the slowness of your general simplistic lefty thought process?
At the end of the day not hating farmers and not agreeing that farmers should be entitled to inherit multi million pound assets at a much lower tax rate than everyone else is a consistent position. I understand your point about the fact it’s a going concern but the reality is inheriting a going concern is a privilege in of itself. That is, unfortunately, a fact. I personally support other ways of supporting farmers and farming without the state subsidising certain people’s inheritances.
Oh dear. The point is, that what the government has done is to make many many businesses (not just farms) less viable and not be going concerns. On top of this they have burdened employment. The envy that drips from your statement "inherit multi million pound assets" sums up the misunderstanding. For most farming families it is irrelevant whether the assets are worth millions or worth £100. The asset is needs for the business to be viable. Sure, they should pay tax if they sell up and decide to live the life of a superannuated top brass civil servant (or maybe even Rachel Reeves maxing out the expenses credit card), but most do not want to do that. The whole thing is driven by spite.
You can wang on about “envy” all you want but it changes nothing. It also changes nothing whether the people inheriting the land are bothered about the value of it (which is clearly bollocks). The fact of the matter is that inheriting million of pounds of assets is an immense privilege and if these businesses cannot plan for such an event or are not viable then that’s a problem with the business (or maybe our trade policies). If you can’t see that then you are out of touch completely.
I don't think I am the one out of touch here. I seem to recall that you are perhaps not very experienced in life (my turn to be patronising). Have you ever built up a business? Employed people? Had a family? Taken risks? Continued to take financial risks for the sake of your employees? Like many others who create wealth I have done all these things. You? I suspect not. I am not out of touch sonny.
God, not the 'Gospel of the poor hard done by business owner' again, busting a gut for the sake your employees. Such altruism, eh?
State of this. It's the Starmer (economic) death cult.
Hardly, it looks like its just poking fun at a rather old political trope of 'I am X, and that means my opinion is worth more than yours'. It even acknowledged itself to be patronising.
It's a bit overwrought to stretch that out into something grander.
First game at the magnificent Everton Stadium, in front of 10k capacity. A new dawn for the club. Except we're 2-0 down after 20 minutes against Wigan Athletic under 18's. So same as ever.
But it won't. They'll raise taxes on wages. Crudely, an immediate 5p rise in the basic rate of income tax would generate about £33bn per year based on the latest Treasury estimates, which is around the amount needed to match American defence spending as a percentage of GDP. In reality, they'd struggle to spend an immediate increment of that size usefully, so it'll probably come in several tranches and they might use a combination of income tax and employee NI hikes, which would have fairly similar effects.
Abolishing the triple lock will raise, or save, precisely no money now. Depending whether the triple lock is replaced by a single or double lock, abolition might save no money for years, and even then, it will only be ‘save’ in the limited sense of not costing as much as it otherwise might have done, because it will not cut pensions or reduce the number of eligible pensioners.
Cutting tax relief on higher rate pension contributions will save money now.
But it won't. They'll raise taxes on wages. Crudely, an immediate 5p rise in the basic rate of income tax would generate about £33bn per year based on the latest Treasury estimates, which is around the amount needed to match American defence spending as a percentage of GDP. In reality, they'd struggle to spend an immediate increment of that size usefully, so it'll probably come in several tranches and they might use a combination of income tax and employee NI hikes, which would have fairly similar effects.
Abolishing the triple lock will raise, or save, precisely no money now. Depending whether the triple lock is replaced by a single or double lock, abolition might save no money for years, and even then, it will only be ‘save’ in the limited sense of not costing as much as it otherwise might have done, because it will not cut pensions or reduce the number of eligible pensioners.
Cutting tax relief on higher rate pension contributions will save money now.
The only surprise about that number is that it isn't higher. As per usual, most people think that everything should be paid for by someone else.
Nonetheless, taxes will have to go up, because there is precious little left that the Government dare cut and it can't allow borrowing to balloon. That would violate the Chancellor's fiscal rules, and the risk is it would wreck the Treasury's reputation with Britain's creditors and make borrowing too expensive in any case. We also have to remember that, beyond defence, the state pension bill is accelerating out of control and the Government will be forced to offer above inflation pay settlements to the public sector, or else they'll simply go back on strike and wreck any attempts to meet targets on cutting hospital waiting times, for example. This is all going to be very expensive.
So, once it runs out of options, Labour will ramp income tax and national insurance. Because, as with the Tories, when push comes to shove and they have to raise tax they'll always prioritise earnings over assets, wages over wealth. They're not so dissimilar from what went before really. They should be called the Capital Party.
44% of Britons think government expenditure can be cut by 20% or more without affecting either service delivery or the wider economy.
I doubt government does either. Putting a figure on how much we think we can cut sounds pretty pointless, we don't have the information to make a proper estimate. But perhaps wisdom of the crowd will end up at the generally correct point.
Though given people usually bemoan current levels of service delivery it is somewhat surprising they might think things can be cut more without negative impact. Especially when people often assume local or national government employees are useless and/or corrupt too - even if you think that means 1 in 5 could be gotten rid of, they probably don't think those that are left are any good.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
I completely agree. Farms have been used as tax havens by some, but the percentage is tiny. HMRC could easily put in rules to distinguish between proper working farms and those that have been used as tax havens, but the current government would rather hammer farmers because they don't generally vote Labour.
I would prefer them to tax people with massive public sector pension pots, or better still silver-spooned millionaire city lawyers and accountants that hide behind dodgy LLP structures where they pretend to be "partners" and "self employed" where most of them couldn't start a company for themselves if their featherbedded life depended on it.
Starmer won’t tax public sector Labour voters or his fellow lawyers more nor will Rachel from accounts tax her own.
Tory and Reform voting farmers and small business owners and pensioners are fair game though
Poor needy pensioners. What with their incomes continually being raided to fund inflation-busting handouts to the under-65s, I don't know how they survive.
“Take a look at President Trump. He’s shown that sometimes you need that first stint in government to spot the problems, but it’s the second time around that you really know how to fix them.”
Trump is dismantling US democracy and replacing it with authoritarianism.
"Monmouthshire council said it had conducted a comprehensive review of 20mph speed limits after residents flagged up 143 roads where they felt a return to the te.
Four roads were selected to be reassessed, with the authority concluding the lower speed limits should remain in place."
That's what happens when a national campaign meets local interests. People like to drive at 30mph past other people's children, but want everyone else to do 20mph past theirs. I'm sure Barty will deride that as NIMBYism, and he'd be right tbh.
What you do not understand in Wales is that different authorities implemented the change differently with counties like Monmouth and Gwynedd imposes less than other countries especially in North Wales
Hundreds of roads are being reverted back to 30mph no matter how you try to say otherwise
Last time you mentioned "hundreds" it actually just meant roads that people like you had requested to be reverted back to 30mph. Now that the councils are reviewing them, hundreds is turning into handfuls.
For example, Conwy got 149 requests and are reviewing only 15.
Yep, exactly - though it looks like they have upped it from 15 roads to 20 "for a full assessment".
And on your second link is just a list of roads that people have requested to be changed back, not those that are. In Monmouthshire, none of the 143 requests were accepted.
You are blinded by your own obsession and frankly have become boring on the subject
Come back when all the roads have been changed and then make an argument if you can
It would help if you didn't post links that supported my point.
All of the roads?! 0% in Monmouthshire. Maximum 14% in Conwy.
No point in continuing discussion with you until the Welsh counties have all made their decisions
At least with @MattW he engages in sensible discussion on this subject and not infantile point scoring
Has there been any recent comment from Turkey and how it thinks of the future of Ukraine and peace talks and terms? I would imagine, as a big power in the region they would have some strong opinions and should/could be involved in the peace but I haven’t seen any reporting on their position (to be honest I haven’t really looked that hard either).
Staying well out of it perhaps, until things have settled down. But it’s odd, because Erdogan was quite prominent in peace proposals right from the start on the war until last November.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
Only Stalin hammered landowning farmers as much as Starmer has
Oh diddums. 🎻
Hang on, why are you in favour of anyone paying more death tax?
More head scratchers from the world's worst libertarian.
I am in favour of taxes being low and equally applied to all. Perfectly libertarian, that.
Some being exempt from taxes they expect others to have to pay means that taxes have to be higher on others to make up the slack of those who aren't contributing.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it.
That’s quite the deal compared to the one everyone else gets for paying IHT.
Farmland prices should drop as a result of this change, which will ultimately be beneficial to UK farmers who want to actually buy land & farm it profitably.
Unfortunately they won’t drop down to the price that would make sense to farm as a going concern because of the potential for any agricultural land to be given planning permission for housing. The solution to his is for the government to take the uplift in land values from being given planning permission. I expect absolute explosions from the usual suspects when/if this gets implemented - IIRC it was hinted at in the Labour manifesto but not made explicit.
"Farmers get a) a lower rate of IHT and b) ten years to pay it."
Fucking marvellous mate! When you inherit granny's bungalow that you have your eye on for years you won't be SAD about selling it because you don't need it to earn your living. This is the difference between inheriting a farm or a business and inheriting almost anything else. The asset is required to keep the business viable you fuckwit, and it doesnt matter that you have 10 years to pay it off because perhaps now the business is no longer viable.
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO FUCKING THICK?
It’s a business asset: everybody else has to pay it, why should farmers be exempt? The land will still get farmed by somebody.
As it is farmland and assets used for family owned businesses also used to be exempt. Otherwise the land could be sold for development or to big agricorps
Just as a straw poll, and details cast to the wind, what would others think is the right percentage of GDP to spend on defence. (Assuming now 2.35%)?
I'd go for about 4%.
I wouldn't start with a percentage, I would start with a shopping list of what we need and the timescales. Some ammunition stockpiles for example. What troops do we need? Should we set up a new drone corps, similar to the Machine Gun Corps of WW1 which went from creation to 100 000 strong in four years? Should we greatly increase the Territorials as a cheap way of increasing trained reserves?
like foreign aid it shouldnt be about percentages, it should be about what capability we need.
So do I. You cannot tell me that there's not a vast mountain of waste to cut through before a penny more in taxes on top of their current eye-watering levels is needed. Any more taxes and we won't have an economy to pay the taxes.
On my first day in office, I met the then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. He told me that his most difficult problem was finding me an office. (He never did.) That set the tone of the Treasury’s approach to confronting waste.
I did manage to cancel 33 government property leases in London, which saved about £1 billion (only £199 billion to go!). But the biggest termination of all, signed and sealed by two cabinet ministers and myself, was overturned after I left (102 Petty France, overlooking St James’s Park). Why?Simply because the civil servants didn’t want to lose the lovely view.
Last week the government answered a written parliamentary question on the amount of overpayments made through Universal Credit, which amounts to nearly £6 billion a year. And yet at the same time they have introduced a controversial death tax on farmers which might generate a tenth of that. The truth is, it is much easier for the administrative machine to slam in a new tax than do the difficult work of running the state more effectively.
And so it goes on. This organisation needs to get the Doge treatment and then some - and that's before we even start on the quangocracy.
As an aside, the government saving money by cancelling property leases is why Jacob Rees-Mogg's call to end WFH was never taken up by the government. Many private companies, including my former employers, did the same, even before the pandemic.
Has there been any recent comment from Turkey and how it thinks of the future of Ukraine and peace talks and terms? I would imagine, as a big power in the region they would have some strong opinions and should/could be involved in the peace but I haven’t seen any reporting on their position (to be honest I haven’t really looked that hard either).
Keeping quiet and hoping nobody notices it's illegally occupying parts of two other countries?
Just as a straw poll, and details cast to the wind, what would others think is the right percentage of GDP to spend on defence. (Assuming now 2.35%)?
I'd go for about 4%.
Reform had been proposing 3% to be reached in 6 years, Tories 2.5% by 2030, Labour were aiming for 2.5% (I cannot see they gave a date), as did the LDs.
Given it seems big cuts were planned even with that rise, I'd assume well into the 3s would be needed to make a big difference?
The only surprise about that number is that it isn't higher. As per usual, most people think that everything should be paid for by someone else.
Nonetheless, taxes will have to go up, because there is precious little left that the Government dare cut and it can't allow borrowing to balloon. That would violate the Chancellor's fiscal rules, and the risk is it would wreck the Treasury's reputation with Britain's creditors and make borrowing too expensive in any case. We also have to remember that, beyond defence, the state pension bill is accelerating out of control and the Government will be forced to offer above inflation pay settlements to the public sector, or else they'll simply go back on strike and wreck any attempts to meet targets on cutting hospital waiting times, for example. This is all going to be very expensive.
So, once it runs out of options, Labour will ramp income tax and national insurance. Because, as with the Tories, when push comes to shove and they have to raise tax they'll always prioritise earnings over assets, wages over wealth. They're not so dissimilar from what went before really. They should be called the Capital Party.
44% of Britons think government expenditure can be cut by 20% or more without affecting either service delivery or the wider economy.
Your average voter is totally fucking clueless. All they know is that all spending is wasted except that which benefits them, and that taxation should only be paid by other people because reasons. It's why I spend roughly equal periods of time lamenting the utter uselessness of the entire political class, and the other half feeling sorry for them. The country is essentially ungovernable.
“Take a look at President Trump. He’s shown that sometimes you need that first stint in government to spot the problems, but it’s the second time around that you really know how to fix them.”
Trump is dismantling US democracy and replacing it with authoritarianism.
But it won't. They'll raise taxes on wages. Crudely, an immediate 5p rise in the basic rate of income tax would generate about £33bn per year based on the latest Treasury estimates, which is around the amount needed to match American defence spending as a percentage of GDP. In reality, they'd struggle to spend an immediate increment of that size usefully, so it'll probably come in several tranches and they might use a combination of income tax and employee NI hikes, which would have fairly similar effects.
There’s a debate which we are simply not having.
Do we think there is a need for increased defence spending? The Americans play their usual “we carried Europe for decades” argument but American defence spending included parts of the world outside NATO’s purview.
The nature of “the threat” has changed. Gone are the days of 100 Warsaw Pact armored divisions powering through the Fulda Gap - if they ever existed.
Governments love a good threat or two - it keeps people frightened and docile. Whether it’s Russia, China, Islamic fundamentalism or foreigners in general, it’s all grist to the propaganda mill.
A wise man once said “we have nothing to fear but fear itself” but modern democracies, and I’m ashamed to admit, many calling themselves “liberal” work on fear.
The other point is most people are wrong about most things most of the time and trying to define the future is right up there if you want to see stupidity in extremis. I doubt I can find the winner of the first at Taunton tomorrow so trying to define geopolitical trends over a decade is beyond me.
The problem is planning for a future whose parameters you have probably defined incorrectly rarely ends well but what else can you do?
I think trying to hunt down a few million here and there in Government “waste” falls nicely into the law of diminishing returns. @pigeon cites £33 billion can be raised by a 5p rise in basic rate tax - put 5p on higher rate but unfreeze thresholds and commit to raising them at double RPI would be my way forward.
As an aside, central and local Government does scenario based budget planning all the time. I imagine most Councils have contingencies for a 10% real terms cut in funding but it’s the Councillors who have to go out to the communities and explain why the library, youth centre or community centre has to close - that’s proper politics, selling the unsellable.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
Just as a straw poll, and details cast to the wind, what would others think is the right percentage of GDP to spend on defence. (Assuming now 2.35%)?
I'd go for about 4%.
I wouldn't start with a percentage, I would start with a shopping list of what we need and the timescales. Some ammunition stockpiles for example. What troops do we need? Should we set up a new drone corps, similar to the Machine Gun Corps of WW1 which went from creation to 100 000 strong in four years? Should we greatly increase the Territorials as a cheap way of increasing trained reserves?
like foreign aid it shouldnt be about percentages, it should be about what capability we need.
We certainly need more numbers in terms of basic training and stockpiles. I think every military figure says this, so I'm happy to echo it.
Nonetheless I was after just a number for a straw poll. Random and equivocated though it might be, what is it?
Nobody asking why people are having children they can't afford to look after.
If you are poor, three children gets you a chance of a 3-bed house with garden on social housing. Two children or fewer means you're probably stuck in a high rise 2 bed flat. No children, probably no points for social housing.
Good evening everybody.
Though child benefit is capped at 2 children and the fertility rate is still below replacement level
I've just read Kemi's speech. It's fucking awful. If I were a Tory, I'd be in despair. To give just one of many examples: she berates political debate for focusing on trivia. Then she repeats a (fake) anecdote about chicken nuggets. Unbelievable.
She's incredibly immature.
Not ready for prime time. As I have said numerous times. It's Hague all over again. Only worse.
Shame frankly because I think she has a lot to offer and a stint in one of the great offices of state in 2030s followed by running for leader and PM might well have worked out.
Though Starmer is no Blair so on some current polls Kemi could form a government with Farage while Hague faced a Blair landslide
“In this moment we have to recognise the new era that we are in, not cling hopelessly to the comforts of the past."
“It’s time for us to take responsibility for our security, for our continent and I’ve been clear today Britain will take a leading responsibility, as we always have, because Ukraine must have a secure future, Europe must have a secure future, Britain must have a secure future and democratic values must prevail.”
This is certainly better than the guy crying at the end of the Munich Security Conference ... that wasn't doing Europe any favours at all. I swear, the Americans and Russians must have been slapping their knees at that spectacle 🙄🙄🙄
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
We have been warning for years that Trump sees VAT as a tariff. This is not new.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
We have been warning for years that Trump sees VAT as a tariff. This is not new.
We've been warning for many years that Trump is a lunatic of very limited intellect.
Alex Burghart is my MP now and a traditional Tory of the old school and good constituency MP but he was an early backer of Badenoch and is more interested being her Keith Joseph than leader. If she did go and lost a VONC, which is unlikely, it would be her Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride or Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip who most likely replaced her
Both utter no hopers.
Are you just not wanting to get excited that you might get Jenrick? I guess it's difficult after so many setbacks.
I voted for Jenrick but he lost the MPs AND members votes. Replacing Kemi with Jenrick would be like Ken Clarke having replaced IDS not Michael Howard. Stride is far more likely being Shadow Chancellor like Howard was
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
We have been warning for years that Trump sees VAT as a tariff. This is not new.
Maybe Reform will end up with VAT abolition in their manifesto.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
We have been warning for years that Trump sees VAT as a tariff. This is not new.
Maybe Reform will end up with VAT abolition in their manifesto.
That would actually be a policy I would support. It's a bad tax and a ridiculous one.
But that doesn't alter the fact that Trump clearly is so stupid he clearly can't grasp what it actually is.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff.
Trump and his government are just making shit up at this point.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
We have been warning for years that Trump sees VAT as a tariff. This is not new.
Maybe Reform will end up with VAT abolition in their manifesto.
Maybe, but that will need a massive increase in income tax to balance the budget.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
I completely agree. Farms have been used as tax havens by some, but the percentage is tiny. HMRC could easily put in rules to distinguish between proper working farms and those that have been used as tax havens, but the current government would rather hammer farmers because they don't generally vote Labour.
I would prefer them to tax people with massive public sector pension pots, or better still silver-spooned millionaire city lawyers and accountants that hide behind dodgy LLP structures where they pretend to be "partners" and "self employed" where most of them couldn't start a company for themselves if their featherbedded life depended on it.
Starmer won’t tax public sector Labour voters or his fellow lawyers more nor will Rachel from accounts tax her own.
Tory and Reform voting farmers and small business owners and pensioners are fair game though
Poor needy pensioners. What with their incomes continually being raided to fund inflation-busting handouts to the under-65s, I don't know how they survive.
Oh. Wait...
Pensioners on just state pension and incomes less than minimum wage have had their winter fuel allowance cut by this awful government
The only surprise about that number is that it isn't higher. As per usual, most people think that everything should be paid for by someone else.
Nonetheless, taxes will have to go up, because there is precious little left that the Government dare cut and it can't allow borrowing to balloon. That would violate the Chancellor's fiscal rules, and the risk is it would wreck the Treasury's reputation with Britain's creditors and make borrowing too expensive in any case. We also have to remember that, beyond defence, the state pension bill is accelerating out of control and the Government will be forced to offer above inflation pay settlements to the public sector, or else they'll simply go back on strike and wreck any attempts to meet targets on cutting hospital waiting times, for example. This is all going to be very expensive.
So, once it runs out of options, Labour will ramp income tax and national insurance. Because, as with the Tories, when push comes to shove and they have to raise tax they'll always prioritise earnings over assets, wages over wealth. They're not so dissimilar from what went before really. They should be called the Capital Party.
44% of Britons think government expenditure can be cut by 20% or more without affecting either service delivery or the wider economy.
Your average voter is totally fucking clueless. All they know is that all spending is wasted except that which benefits them, and that taxation should only be paid by other people because reasons. It's why I spend roughly equal periods of time lamenting the utter uselessness of the entire political class, and the other half feeling sorry for them. The country is essentially ungovernable.
What’s new? I doubt the level of ignorance has changed much in 50 years.
Most people function most of the time on the basis of motivated self interest. I have often cited the Victorian philanthropists who funded public buildings and provided basic education but they weren’t entirely without ulterior motivation.
It’s easy to give people what they want but the hard sell of politics is to persuade them to accept sacrifice for the greater good. Simply saying “we’re in this together” is trite and facile and there is a large element of leading by example which is where recent Governments have failed.
“Do not as I do, do as I say”is an unappealing form of governance.
Right. For my next straw poll I've ordered gold and diamond encrusted ones. They also have and AI onboard that can interact with your phone and say 'vote now'. For those of you that have had Bill Gates jabs it will also be able to interact with your brain and make you like shoes and hate pineapple. This post is sponsored by TSE-World.
But it won't. They'll raise taxes on wages. Crudely, an immediate 5p rise in the basic rate of income tax would generate about £33bn per year based on the latest Treasury estimates, which is around the amount needed to match American defence spending as a percentage of GDP. In reality, they'd struggle to spend an immediate increment of that size usefully, so it'll probably come in several tranches and they might use a combination of income tax and employee NI hikes, which would have fairly similar effects.
Abolishing the triple lock will raise, or save, precisely no money now. Depending whether the triple lock is replaced by a single or double lock, abolition might save no money for years, and even then, it will only be ‘save’ in the limited sense of not costing as much as it otherwise might have done, because it will not cut pensions or reduce the number of eligible pensioners.
Cutting tax relief on higher rate pension contributions will save money now.
You're right of course (although I dispute the idea that it's unlikely to save money for years: getting rid of it would be hugely beneficial over time.) I'm just hugely annoyed that this Government keeps going to the well of earnings to get itself out of trouble. It was the centrepiece of last year's budget: an employer NI hike that Reeves knew full bloody well would be passed directly on to workers through wage suppression. And it's where they'll keep going whenever they get short of cash. Over and over and over again.
The idea that they can make a mooted alternative of slashing 11% off what's left of the budgets of most Government departments is visible. It would be a massive new wave of austerity that would entirely destroy what's left of Labour's already fraying reputation, just like Black Wednesday ruined that of the Major Government, and they know it. They were not elected to deliver turbocharged Toryism, and trying in vain to pin all the blame for their choices on Putin won't wash.
The only surprise about that number is that it isn't higher. As per usual, most people think that everything should be paid for by someone else.
Nonetheless, taxes will have to go up, because there is precious little left that the Government dare cut and it can't allow borrowing to balloon. That would violate the Chancellor's fiscal rules, and the risk is it would wreck the Treasury's reputation with Britain's creditors and make borrowing too expensive in any case. We also have to remember that, beyond defence, the state pension bill is accelerating out of control and the Government will be forced to offer above inflation pay settlements to the public sector, or else they'll simply go back on strike and wreck any attempts to meet targets on cutting hospital waiting times, for example. This is all going to be very expensive.
So, once it runs out of options, Labour will ramp income tax and national insurance. Because, as with the Tories, when push comes to shove and they have to raise tax they'll always prioritise earnings over assets, wages over wealth. They're not so dissimilar from what went before really. They should be called the Capital Party.
44% of Britons think government expenditure can be cut by 20% or more without affecting either service delivery or the wider economy.
Your average voter is totally fucking clueless. All they know is that all spending is wasted except that which benefits them, and that taxation should only be paid by other people because reasons. It's why I spend roughly equal periods of time lamenting the utter uselessness of the entire political class, and the other half feeling sorry for them. The country is essentially ungovernable.
I'll go first - I should be taxed CGT on the increased value of my flat when I sell it. I should also pay more fuel duty for my journeys in and around the city I live in, and much more for the space my car takes up on the street. My income tax allowance should be cut, as I have no dependents, as well as my ISA allowance. * Council Tax should probably massively increase, but be based on house prices - again increasing my tax burden.
I receive very little in the way of spending, except for road maintenence, so I'm struggling a bit on that count. A bit late to pay up for my free uni tuition, but I do pay an effective tax rate of over 50% including loan repayments.
*I think we should abolish CGT/IHT entirely and replace them with a small, universal flat capital tax instead, with a £50k allowance, but that's by-the-by.
The only surprise about that number is that it isn't higher. As per usual, most people think that everything should be paid for by someone else.
Nonetheless, taxes will have to go up, because there is precious little left that the Government dare cut and it can't allow borrowing to balloon. That would violate the Chancellor's fiscal rules, and the risk is it would wreck the Treasury's reputation with Britain's creditors and make borrowing too expensive in any case. We also have to remember that, beyond defence, the state pension bill is accelerating out of control and the Government will be forced to offer above inflation pay settlements to the public sector, or else they'll simply go back on strike and wreck any attempts to meet targets on cutting hospital waiting times, for example. This is all going to be very expensive.
So, once it runs out of options, Labour will ramp income tax and national insurance. Because, as with the Tories, when push comes to shove and they have to raise tax they'll always prioritise earnings over assets, wages over wealth. They're not so dissimilar from what went before really. They should be called the Capital Party.
44% of Britons think government expenditure can be cut by 20% or more without affecting either service delivery or the wider economy.
Your average voter is totally fucking clueless. All they know is that all spending is wasted except that which benefits them, and that taxation should only be paid by other people because reasons. It's why I spend roughly equal periods of time lamenting the utter uselessness of the entire political class, and the other half feeling sorry for them. The country is essentially ungovernable.
Remind me how much we are giving for giving the chagos islands away ? Of course government spending can be cut significantly
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff.
Trump and his government are just making shit up at this point.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
We have been warning for years that Trump sees VAT as a tariff. This is not new.
Maybe Reform will end up with VAT abolition in their manifesto.
I know you’re not actually interested in this topic but some might be. There is an argument for VAT to be reformed and replaced with end customer sales taxes, which could be at much lower headline rates while bringing in the same revenue, because unlike VAT they are not recoverable.
The original benefit of VAT over sales taxes was that it’s collected throughout the supply chain so it’s harder to evade and easier to police, as well as being a bit better for cash flow. But now VAT is largely automated and the informal economy is much shrunken it’s arguable those advantages have faded. We’re probably not there yet but it could be a thing in future.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff.
Trump and his government are just making shit up at this point.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
I think all farmers hate Starmer and Rachel From Accounts, along with most people who run businesses. The reason why privately held businesses (including farms) were inheritance tax free was because it enabled the next generation to continue the business as a viable entity, whereas if some c*ntish government made up of fuckwits who don't understand business insist on taxing the asset value causing it to become unviable.
If the next generation decide not to do the hard work or take any further risks and realise the asset value and sell up then they pay tax in the form of CGT.
There we are, thick people, I have explained why the IHT for family farms and private businesses is iniquitous and will damage the country generally.
The problem is that farm land is now an IHT dodgy as demonstrated by Dyson and to a less extent Mr Clarkson who bought the land first and then discovered a decent idea for a TV series second.
So the ideal solution is to work out how to solve things in a way that allows the farm to continue while the IHT dodgers get captured - problem is HMRC isn’t clever enough to do that so they implemented a different solution.
I completely agree. Farms have been used as tax havens by some, but the percentage is tiny. HMRC could easily put in rules to distinguish between proper working farms and those that have been used as tax havens, but the current government would rather hammer farmers because they don't generally vote Labour.
I would prefer them to tax people with massive public sector pension pots, or better still silver-spooned millionaire city lawyers and accountants that hide behind dodgy LLP structures where they pretend to be "partners" and "self employed" where most of them couldn't start a company for themselves if their featherbedded life depended on it.
Starmer won’t tax public sector Labour voters or his fellow lawyers more nor will Rachel from accounts tax her own.
Tory and Reform voting farmers and small business owners and pensioners are fair game though
Poor needy pensioners. What with their incomes continually being raided to fund inflation-busting handouts to the under-65s, I don't know how they survive.
Oh. Wait...
Pensioners on just state pension and incomes less than minimum wage have had their winter fuel allowance cut by this awful government
Good. It was an awful policy introduced by Brown. Good riddance.
Cold weather payments still exist for those who need them and are eligible for them.
"I would rather be governed by someone who would imprison or kill me if I criticised him than be governed by Keir Starmer"
More from Jeremy Clarkson as we get it.
The right in the UK has lost its mind.
Tax dodging farmers like Clarkson really do hate Starmer.
Only Stalin hammered landowning farmers as much as Starmer has
Thats bonkers. We have only had zero IHT on agricultural land for a few decades. How did family farms survive before that?
There was no inheritance tax at all until Lloyd George introduced it last century and once the threshold was lowered by Labour governments and started to hit family farms and successful small businesses not just the great estates Thatcher introduced the exemption
But it won't. They'll raise taxes on wages. Crudely, an immediate 5p rise in the basic rate of income tax would generate about £33bn per year based on the latest Treasury estimates, which is around the amount needed to match American defence spending as a percentage of GDP. In reality, they'd struggle to spend an immediate increment of that size usefully, so it'll probably come in several tranches and they might use a combination of income tax and employee NI hikes, which would have fairly similar effects.
Abolishing the triple lock will raise, or save, precisely no money now. Depending whether the triple lock is replaced by a single or double lock, abolition might save no money for years, and even then, it will only be ‘save’ in the limited sense of not costing as much as it otherwise might have done, because it will not cut pensions or reduce the number of eligible pensioners.
Cutting tax relief on higher rate pension contributions will save money now.
You're right of course (although I dispute the idea that it's unlikely to save money for years: getting rid of it would be hugely beneficial over time.) I'm just hugely annoyed that this Government keeps going to the well of earnings to get itself out of trouble. It was the centrepiece of last year's budget: an employer NI hike that Reeves knew full bloody well would be passed directly on to workers through wage suppression. And it's where they'll keep going whenever they get short of cash. Over and over and over again.
The idea that they can make a mooted alternative of slashing 11% off what's left of the budgets of most Government departments is visible. It would be a massive new wave of austerity that would entirely destroy what's left of Labour's already fraying reputation, just like Black Wednesday ruined that of the Major Government, and they know it. They were not elected to deliver turbocharged Toryism, and trying in vain to pin all the blame for their choices on Putin won't wash.
It was defence spending, in particular the nuclear programme, the formation of NATO and the Cold War, including the Korean War that broke the Attlee government by forcing a grinding austerity and continued rationing.
If you go for guns over butter, dont expect to get re-elected.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
We have been warning for years that Trump sees VAT as a tariff. This is not new.
Maybe Reform will end up with VAT abolition in their manifesto.
I know you’re not actually interested in this topic but some might be. There is an argument for VAT to be reformed and replaced with end customer sales taxes, which could be at much lower headline rates while bringing in the same revenue, because unlike VAT they are not recoverable.
The original benefit of VAT over sales taxes was that it’s collected throughout the supply chain so it’s harder to evade and easier to police, as well as being a bit better for cash flow. But now VAT is largely automated and the informal economy is much shrunken it’s arguable those advantages have faded. We’re probably not there yet but it could be a thing in future.
Has the informal economy really shrunk a lot? How do we know? My experience suggests that it's still pretty large, though that's merely anecdotal of course.
Nadine might be right. Both Alex and Claire went to Oxford, which is what counts. One did sums like Liz and the other is a former history teacher who wrote for the Spectator.
Non Oxbridge IDS was replaced by Cambridge Howard. Major was non Oxford and stayed leader for 7 years but he won a general election outright in 1992. Disraeli also won in 1874 which secured him despite being a non Oxford leader. Churchill was non Oxford too and was party leader for 11 years until he won a general election, though he had been to Harrow and also led the UK to victory in WW2
Fun fact:
Only Cambridge educated Tory leader to win a GE was Stanley Baldwin.
Palmerston did it for the Liberals though and Labour have never had a Cambridge educated leader
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
But it won't. They'll raise taxes on wages. Crudely, an immediate 5p rise in the basic rate of income tax would generate about £33bn per year based on the latest Treasury estimates, which is around the amount needed to match American defence spending as a percentage of GDP. In reality, they'd struggle to spend an immediate increment of that size usefully, so it'll probably come in several tranches and they might use a combination of income tax and employee NI hikes, which would have fairly similar effects.
Abolishing the triple lock will raise, or save, precisely no money now. Depending whether the triple lock is replaced by a single or double lock, abolition might save no money for years, and even then, it will only be ‘save’ in the limited sense of not costing as much as it otherwise might have done, because it will not cut pensions or reduce the number of eligible pensioners.
Cutting tax relief on higher rate pension contributions will save money now.
You're right of course (although I dispute the idea that it's unlikely to save money for years: getting rid of it would be hugely beneficial over time.) I'm just hugely annoyed that this Government keeps going to the well of earnings to get itself out of trouble. It was the centrepiece of last year's budget: an employer NI hike that Reeves knew full bloody well would be passed directly on to workers through wage suppression. And it's where they'll keep going whenever they get short of cash. Over and over and over again.
The idea that they can make a mooted alternative of slashing 11% off what's left of the budgets of most Government departments is visible. It would be a massive new wave of austerity that would entirely destroy what's left of Labour's already fraying reputation, just like Black Wednesday ruined that of the Major Government, and they know it. They were not elected to deliver turbocharged Toryism, and trying in vain to pin all the blame for their choices on Putin won't wash.
It was defence spending, in particular the nuclear programme, the formation of NATO and the Cold War, including the Korean War that broke the Attlee government by forcing a grinding austerity and continued rationing.
If you go for guns over butter, dont expect to get re-elected.
There's complexity in that though. Defence spending in that era created jobs for the many talented engineers etc. Something of the good of what we have now came from that.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
That is weapons grade bat-shittery.
A trade war with all of Europe based on a complete misunderstanding of how VAT works..
Alex Burghart is my MP now and a traditional Tory of the old school and good constituency MP but he was an early backer of Badenoch and is more interested being her Keith Joseph than leader. If she did go and lost a VONC, which is unlikely, it would be her Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride or Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip who most likely replaced her
Both utter no hopers.
Are you just not wanting to get excited that you might get Jenrick? I guess it's difficult after so many setbacks.
I voted for Jenrick but he lost the MPs AND members votes. Replacing Kemi with Jenrick would be like Ken Clarke having replaced IDS not Michael Howard. Stride is far more likely being Shadow Chancellor like Howard was
So you voted for someone who thought painting over Mickey Mouse was the future of the Tory party...
Nadine might be right. Both Alex and Claire went to Oxford, which is what counts. One did sums like Liz and the other is a former history teacher who wrote for the Spectator.
Non Oxbridge IDS was replaced by Cambridge Howard. Major was non Oxford and stayed leader for 7 years but he won a general election outright in 1992. Disraeli also won in 1874 which secured him despite being a non Oxford leader. Churchill was non Oxford too and was party leader for 11 years until he won a general election, though he had been to Harrow and also led the UK to victory in WW2
Fun fact:
Only Cambridge educated Tory leader to win a GE was Stanley Baldwin.
Palmerston did it for the Liberals though and Labour have never had a Cambridge educated leader
Palmerston didn't in fact have an academic degree from Cambridge, because he had a prior degree from Edinburgh. As a nobleman, he instead got his degree by acclamation.
He did sit college exams, where he got top honours in every one.
I think the previous PM at Cambridge was Pitt the Younger?
Surprised to think about Labour, but you're right.
Nadine might be right. Both Alex and Claire went to Oxford, which is what counts. One did sums like Liz and the other is a former history teacher who wrote for the Spectator.
Non Oxbridge IDS was replaced by Cambridge Howard. Major was non Oxford and stayed leader for 7 years but he won a general election outright in 1992. Disraeli also won in 1874 which secured him despite being a non Oxford leader. Churchill was non Oxford too and was party leader for 11 years until he won a general election, though he had been to Harrow and also led the UK to victory in WW2
Fun fact:
Only Cambridge educated Tory leader to win a GE was Stanley Baldwin.
Palmerston did it for the Liberals though and Labour have never had a Cambridge educated leader
First game at the magnificent Everton Stadium, in front of 10k capacity. A new dawn for the club. Except we're 2-0 down after 20 minutes against Wigan Athletic under 18's. So same as ever.
Probably worth mentioning that it’s Everton’s under 18’s too…
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
We have been warning for years that Trump sees VAT as a tariff. This is not new.
Maybe Reform will end up with VAT abolition in their manifesto.
I know you’re not actually interested in this topic but some might be. There is an argument for VAT to be reformed and replaced with end customer sales taxes, which could be at much lower headline rates while bringing in the same revenue, because unlike VAT they are not recoverable.
The original benefit of VAT over sales taxes was that it’s collected throughout the supply chain so it’s harder to evade and easier to police, as well as being a bit better for cash flow. But now VAT is largely automated and the informal economy is much shrunken it’s arguable those advantages have faded. We’re probably not there yet but it could be a thing in future.
Has the informal economy really shrunk a lot? How do we know? My experience suggests that it's still pretty large, though that's merely anecdotal of course.
It’s possible to estimate it at macro level by interrogating data on money supply, tax receipts and consumption. It’s still there of course but considered to be much smaller proportionally to most other developed countries, and it’s shrunk relative to the past just about everywhere in middle and high income countries.
Comments
Come back when all the roads have been changed and then make an argument if you can
Are you just not wanting to get excited that you might get Jenrick? I guess it's difficult after so many setbacks.
https://bsky.app/profile/jolyonmaugham.bsky.social/post/3libvacwijs26
"fair compensation rather than inflated prices"
Needs to be seen if they mean ag value, will a land agent calculate it without development potential?
Clearly there is a significant amount of housing to be built to accommodate the UK's growing population.
I think a lot of land will free up over the next 5 years with stealth due to a number of issues, tax being one of them. Retirement will free a lot of land up. Can't blame the younger generation if they don't want to farm
Sounds like your MP is a bit daft.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyzy300vlzo
Only Cambridge educated Tory leader to win a GE was Stanley Baldwin.
But is an automatic assumption we cannot cut back inherently worse than an automatic assumption we can? Shouldn't we aim to be more open to doing it, and properly investigate, and see what is possible? (and not juast assume it is not).
On assupmptions take a story on Guido today about a civil service training contract for£570m. Is that way too much for the specific service being offered? Maybe it is. But the story's assumption is that the entire amount is worthless. It's presented as an article of faith that none of it can be worth anything (perhaps the report they link to on it is more nuanced).
See also a similar attitude to homeworking (something I personally do not like to do). Is office working more productive? Again, perhaps it is, let's assume so for sake of argument. But does it therefore make sense to portray anyone not office working literally slacking off the entire time and doing nothing? As that argument gets made often.
I get frustration if we are not as a nation really giving the idea of cutting waste a proper assessment. I can believe there's something to that. But whilst you may not be, plenty of commentators will probably just go 'I dislike X, therefore we can cut all of it to spend on Y'.
I'd have thought you'd be entirely onside with overriding the wishes of people who sign petitions and launch petitions, given your very strong views on doing that to people who do the same for newts and bats etc etc
All of the roads?! 0% in Monmouthshire. Maximum 14% in Conwy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/02/10/keir-starmer-backs-deportation-chicken-nugget-migrant/
https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3lif7x557kc2z
There are nowhere near enough "diversity officers" to do that.
It would be about £240 billion, so the entire NHS budget, or perhaps half that and the entire State pension.
People really do not understand the national finances and where the money actually gets spent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom
Tory and Reform voting farmers and small business owners and pensioners are fair game though
The politicians have done what they wanted to do and ignored the consultation. So why they bothered with it in the first place is beyond me.
Oh and my view is that we should take power away from politicians and petitioners alike and let people do liberally as they damn please. I don't favour letting small busybodies in local politics make decisions for everyone, I'd sooner see local councils abolished or at least stripped of most of their powers to be handed back to individuals.
I'd go for about 4%.
It's a bit overwrought to stretch that out into something grander.
A new dawn for the club.
Except we're 2-0 down after 20 minutes against Wigan Athletic under 18's.
So same as ever.
https://x.com/abbafan102/status/1891551461869310347?s=61
More head scratchers from the world's worst libertarian.
Cutting tax relief on higher rate pension contributions will save money now.
Ailbhe Rea
@PronouncedAlva
·
3h
Scoop: Government departments are bracing for cuts of up to 11% to fund defence.
They were asked to model the 11% cuts as a worst-case scenario - now it's looking like a reality, some of them fear.
by
@PhilAldrick
@alexwickham
and me
https://x.com/PronouncedAlva/status/1891522727292314073
Though given people usually bemoan current levels of service delivery it is somewhat surprising they might think things can be cut more without negative impact. Especially when people often assume local or national government employees are useless and/or corrupt too - even if you think that means 1 in 5 could be gotten rid of, they probably don't think those that are left are any good.
Oh. Wait...
At least with @MattW he engages in sensible discussion on this subject and not infantile point scoring
Some being exempt from taxes they expect others to have to pay means that taxes have to be higher on others to make up the slack of those who aren't contributing.
Hope that clears up the confusion for you.
like foreign aid it shouldnt be about percentages, it should be about what capability we need.
Given it seems big cuts were planned even with that rise, I'd assume well into the 3s would be needed to make a big difference?
He made a bigger mess than Liz Truss while being merely leader of the Opposiition.
Do we think there is a need for increased defence spending? The Americans play their usual “we carried Europe for decades” argument but American defence spending included parts of the world outside NATO’s purview.
The nature of “the threat” has changed. Gone are the days of 100 Warsaw Pact armored divisions powering through the Fulda Gap - if they ever existed.
Governments love a good threat or two - it keeps people frightened and docile. Whether it’s Russia, China, Islamic fundamentalism or foreigners in general, it’s all grist to the propaganda mill.
A wise man once said “we have nothing to fear but fear itself” but modern democracies, and I’m ashamed to admit, many calling themselves “liberal” work on fear.
The other point is most people are wrong about most things most of the time and trying to define the future is right up there if you want to see stupidity in extremis. I doubt I can find the winner of the first at Taunton tomorrow so trying to define geopolitical trends over a decade is beyond me.
The problem is planning for a future whose parameters you have probably defined incorrectly rarely ends well but what else can you do?
I think trying to hunt down a few million here and there in Government “waste” falls nicely into the law of diminishing returns. @pigeon cites £33 billion can be raised by a 5p rise in basic rate tax - put 5p on higher rate but unfreeze thresholds and commit to raising them at double RPI would be my way forward.
As an aside, central and local Government does scenario based budget planning all the time. I imagine most Councils have contingencies for a 10% real terms cut in funding but it’s the Councillors who have to go out to the communities and explain why the library, youth centre or community centre has to close - that’s proper politics, selling the unsellable.
Nigel Farage MP
@Nigel_Farage
·
1h
Join me for a big Reform UK rally in Hull on the 27th of February.
On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!
For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.
For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!
Nonetheless I was after just a number for a straw poll. Random and equivocated though it might be, what is it?
“In this moment we have to recognise the new era that we are in, not cling hopelessly to the comforts of the past."
“It’s time for us to take responsibility for our security, for our continent and I’ve been clear today Britain will take a leading responsibility, as we always have, because Ukraine must have a secure future, Europe must have a secure future, Britain must have a secure future and democratic values must prevail.”
This is certainly better than the guy crying at the end of the Munich Security Conference ... that wasn't doing Europe any favours at all. I swear, the Americans and Russians must have been slapping their knees at that spectacle 🙄🙄🙄
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-british-troops-putin-trump-peace-talks-latest-b2699299.html
This is also not new...
But that doesn't alter the fact that Trump clearly is so stupid he clearly can't grasp what it actually is.
Most people function most of the time on the basis of motivated self interest. I have often cited the Victorian philanthropists who funded public buildings and provided basic education but they weren’t entirely without ulterior motivation.
It’s easy to give people what they want but the hard sell of politics is to persuade them to accept sacrifice for the greater good. Simply saying “we’re in this together” is trite and facile and there is a large element of leading by example which is where recent Governments have failed.
“Do not as I do, do as I say”is an unappealing form of governance.
The idea that they can make a mooted alternative of slashing 11% off what's left of the budgets of most Government departments is visible. It would be a massive new wave of austerity that would entirely destroy what's left of Labour's already fraying reputation, just like Black Wednesday ruined that of the Major Government, and they know it. They were not elected to deliver turbocharged Toryism, and trying in vain to pin all the blame for their choices on Putin won't wash.
I receive very little in the way of spending, except for road maintenence, so I'm struggling a bit on that count. A bit late to pay up for my free uni tuition, but I do pay an effective tax rate of over 50% including loan repayments.
*I think we should abolish CGT/IHT entirely and replace them with a small, universal flat capital tax instead, with a £50k allowance, but that's by-the-by.
The original benefit of VAT over sales taxes was that it’s collected throughout the supply chain so it’s harder to evade and easier to police, as well as being a bit better for cash flow. But now VAT is largely automated and the informal economy is much shrunken it’s arguable those advantages have faded. We’re probably not there yet but it could be a thing in future.
Cold weather payments still exist for those who need them and are eligible for them.
If you go for guns over butter, dont expect to get re-elected.
And defence spending is about £30bn short.
It would play havoc with all sorts of dependencies and cause the comedy of rioting landlords.
Most MPs would be storming their own barricades.
I’d like to see the end of state subsidy support for generationally debilitating house pricing though.
I’d settle for 10% now. 10% more next year. £3bn would buy some drones and 155mm shells.
One can have too much butter.
He did sit college exams, where he got top honours in every one.
I think the previous PM at Cambridge was Pitt the Younger?
Surprised to think about Labour, but you're right.
Useful comparison here:
https://www.worldeconomics.com/National-Statistics/Informal-Economy/United Kingdom.aspx
The very low US number surprised me given the greater prevalence of cash there.