Less than half of Tory voters opposed. To be fair though the UK already spends the percentage of gdp on defence NATO requires. It is Germany and France falling behind, though Merz may change that
It seems that the new US view of "free trade" is that no tariffs OR taxes ought to apply to US goods and services sold overseas. Even assuming we were willing to go along with such a crazy approach it would greatly harm UK businesses, or completely demolish the tax base. We couldn't do it, so the only rational thing to do would be to cease trading with the US. Trump et al. are on a path if they go through with their threats where international trade gets completley upended.
Canadians are already boycotting US goods, I can see us being in similar position quite soon.
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 should have gone in with Canada when they got this treatment. We're going to get picked off one by one.
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.
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 the last point, that's the entire purpose of local Government - to deflect blame from Whitehall.
We do need much stronger conventional defences, because the Russians need to know that if they try to conquer our allies they will get the living shit beaten out of them. Essentially, their leader is a bloodthirsty emperor and most of their people are eager accomplices in his behaviour, who only understand brute strength. If presented with insufficient resolve then they will devour Europe a chunk at a time, with actual force or the threat of it, and the only means we'll have left to stop them is to threaten to retaliate with nuclear weapons. That's not somewhere we want to be going.
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 should have gone in with Canada when they got this treatment. We're going to get picked off one by one.
Canada are utter beasts on the trade negotiation front. The last UK government abandoned FTA negotiations with them because they weren’t yielding on anything.
It seems that the new US view of "free trade" is that no tariffs OR taxes ought to apply to US goods and services sold overseas. Even assuming we were willing to go along with such a crazy approach it would greatly harm UK businesses, or completely demolish the tax base. We couldn't do it, so the only rational thing to do would be to cease trading with the US. Trump et al. are on a path if they go through with their threats where international trade gets completley upended.
Canadians are already boycotting US goods, I can see us being in similar position quite soon.
This kind of behaviour will end with everyone pivoting to China. Xi probably can't believe his luck.
Less than half of Tory voters opposed. To be fair though the UK already spends the percentage of gdp on defence NATO requires. It is Germany and France falling behind, though Merz may change 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..
More likely, a trade war based on:
a) wanting the money
b) the Loser-in-Chief wanting to give his loser supporters a scapegoat to blame.
If someone were to explain to DJT the functioning of VAT with the intelligence of a Cambridge seminar and the simplicity of Janet and John, he'd still want an excuse to impose tariffs on the countries of Europe.
At least this screed doesn't refer to Fair And Reciprocal Tariffs like some of the earlier ones. That acronym presumably came from Musk.
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.
Actually I posted several months ago that it might be a good idea to use our Brexit Freedoms to replace VAT with an Australian-style sales tax.
"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.
As a soon to be pensioner married to a pensioner I have to agree. We don't need the money. It usually got spent on Christmas presents for grandkids. Also my wife is over 75 so we can qualify for a free license. Not sure I will though it is unfair.
Any PBers in Hull wanting to report from the front line?
Nigel Farage MP
@Nigel_Farage · 1h Join me for a big Reform UK rally in Hull on the 27th of February.
Philip Larkin on Hull; ripe for Reform I should think:
Here domes and statues, spires and cranes cluster Beside grain-scattered streets, barge-crowded water, And residents from raw estates, brought down The dead straight miles by stealing flat-faced trolleys, Push through plate-glass swing doors to their desires— Cheap suits, red kitchen-ware, sharp shoes, iced lollies, Electric mixers, toasters, washers, driers—
A cut-price crowd, urban yet simple, dwelling Where only salesmen and relations come Within a terminate and fishy-smelling Pastoral of ships up streets, the slave museum, Tattoo-shops, consulates, grim head-scarfed wives;
"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.
A tiny amount not consistent while more low income pensioners succumb to pneumonia also adding to pressure on NHS
The original allies. This time, I hope we don't let Poland down.
There was little we could either in 1939 or 1945 to help as the French were not prepared to invade Germany to aid Poland. And yet history suggests that if they had it would have caused Germany real issues in the West.
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
"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.
As a soon to be pensioner married to a pensioner I have to agree. We don't need the money. It usually got spent on Christmas presents for grandkids. Also my wife is over 75 so we can qualify for a free license. Not sure I will though it is unfair.
If that is the TV licence the 75 age exemption ended in 2020 unless you receive pension credit
So was anything of any real substance agreed at the special emergency European summit, or was it just a chance for a bunch of leaders to look like they've any idea what's going on or indeed involved in any way?
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...
My first preference was Tugendhat who I think would now have a comfortable poll lead with Labour maybe third behind the Conservatives and Reform and the LDs back under 10%
Less than half of Tory voters opposed. To be fair though the UK already spends the percentage of gdp on defence NATO requires. It is Germany and France falling behind, though Merz may change that
That poll tells me Reform are a real problem.
And the only people with half a chance of winning that argument are the remaining solid conservatives. Wets, libs and ghastly socialists aren't going to get any sort of hearing.
In all sincerity- good luck. Sometimes, being the opposition still means you have a responsibility to fulfil. (One that Corbyn definitely failed over Salisbury, and EdM arguably failed over Syria.)
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 should have gone in with Canada when they got this treatment. We're going to get picked off one by one.
It's as though a maladjusted four-year-old child has been elected President.
totally unworkable but iirc housing benefit is £30bn per year.
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.
I agree that mass landlordism is a complete social disaster, but cutting back on housing benefit will simply lead to vast numbers of evictions, and the costs going straight back onto the state balance sheet with interest as councils are compelled to rehouse huge numbers of homeless families. Mostly, I should imagine, in simultaneously grotty and expensive temporary accommodation, purchased from... landlords.
Cutting the private rented sector back down to size would take an immense amount of time and effort, and it's not going to happen. Instead, coming soon to a new build housing estate near you, build-to-let. Industrial scale rent farming to help meet the Government's housing targets. There'll be a larger percentage of the population in rented property, and a correspondingly higher housing benefit bill, when this lot get booted out than there was when they were elected.
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...
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 should have gone in with Canada when they got this treatment. We're going to get picked off one by one.
It's as though a maladjusted four-year-old child has been elected President.
That's very unkind.
Unless you've had a particularly bad experience of maladjusted four year olds.
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..
More likely, a trade war based on:
a) wanting the money
b) the Loser-in-Chief wanting to give his loser supporters a scapegoat to blame.
If someone were to explain to DJT the functioning of VAT with the intelligence of a Cambridge seminar and the simplicity of Janet and John, he'd still want an excuse to impose tariffs on the countries of Europe.
At least this screed doesn't refer to Fair And Reciprocal Tariffs like some of the earlier ones. That acronym presumably came from Musk.
The original allies. This time, I hope we don't let Poland down.
Yup, there's no room for Germany in a European military alliance. They would rather appease Russia than deploy troop unfortunately which means they will drag their heels constantly.
"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.
Where exactly did local interests get a voice here? the authority concluded....no mention of asking people actually living there just idiot civil servants with a mission
What typically happens is people who live in a traffic-calmed area overwhelmingly in favour, while those who drive through them (often from a neighbouring LTN) are opposed. Councillors are elected on small enough geographies for them to side with the local residents who elected them.
Consultations != referendums, particularly when a twitter warrior from Edinburgh can make a submission on a 20mph limit in Wales
As I recall, a remarkable number of Conservatives in England were active in that 'consultation', political agitation, etc.
They may think it normal to impose their view on ...
"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.
A tiny amount not consistent while more low income pensioners succumb to pneumonia also adding to pressure on NHS
Actually infants are more likely to succumb to pneumonia than pensioners of any age.
So if you were to do the policy based on need, then it universally being granted to all infants would make more sense.
Less than half of Tory voters opposed. To be fair though the UK already spends the percentage of gdp on defence NATO requires. It is Germany and France falling behind, though Merz may change that
That poll tells me Reform are a real problem.
And the only people with half a chance of winning that argument are the remaining solid conservatives. Wets, libs and ghastly socialists aren't going to get any sort of hearing.
In all sincerity- good luck. Sometimes, being the opposition still means you have a responsibility to fulfil. (One that Corbyn definitely failed over Salisbury, and EdM arguably failed over Syria.)
Any PBers in Hull wanting to report from the front line?
Nigel Farage MP
@Nigel_Farage · 1h Join me for a big Reform UK rally in Hull on the 27th of February.
The Electoral Calculus MRP currently has pretty much all of the old Humberside Westminster seats as trending Reform. If the general predictions of support are to be believed then they should do well in both the Hull and Lincolnshire spring mayorals.
"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.
A tiny amount not consistent while more low income pensioners succumb to pneumonia also adding to pressure on NHS
Actually infants are more likely to succumb to pneumonia than pensioners of any age.
So if you were to do the policy based on need, then it universally being granted to all infants would make more sense.
"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.
A tiny amount not consistent while more low income pensioners succumb to pneumonia also adding to pressure on NHS
Actually infants are more likely to succumb to pneumonia than pensioners of any age.
So if you were to do the policy based on need, then it universally being granted to all infants would make more sense.
But infants don't vote.
Give Labour enough time and they probably will… #votesat16justthestart
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.
Actually I posted several months ago that it might be a good idea to use our Brexit Freedoms to replace VAT with an Australian-style sales tax.
Australian GST is a VAT, with the same credit and recovery mechanism and tax arising on import. Operates the same way, just has a different name. It wouldn’t make sense to replace with GST, you’d want to go the whole hog to a non-VAT.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
"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.
As a soon to be pensioner married to a pensioner I have to agree. We don't need the money. It usually got spent on Christmas presents for grandkids. Also my wife is over 75 so we can qualify for a free license. Not sure I will though it is unfair.
If that is the TV licence the 75 age exemption ended in 2020 unless you receive pension credit
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Support Ukraine to defeat Russia was the plan.
Ending the war by surrender is worse than continuing the war, not an improvement.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Bad guys throughout history have forced others to focus minds and form coalitions. Napoleon forced the continental powers to put aside their differences. OPEC in the 70s forced the West to take energy efficiency and independence seriously. The threat of communist revolution forced capitalist governments to introduce social policies.
Putin has had a similar, though still as yet incomplete, galvanising effect on the European defence establishment,
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.
Actually I posted several months ago that it might be a good idea to use our Brexit Freedoms to replace VAT with an Australian-style sales tax.
Australian GST is a VAT, with the same credit and recovery mechanism and tax arising on import. Operates the same way, just has a different name. It wouldn’t make sense to replace with GST, you’d want to go the whole hog to a non-VAT.
It seems that Australian-style solutions aren't all they're cracked up to be.
"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
Now, now ladies . Handbags at Dawn (copyright Iain Dale) is more decorous.
On a separate point, I see that Wrexham (North Wales) looks to be changing 50 stretches of road back to 50mp default.
That, Conwy (15-20 for review) and Monmouthshire (none for review) seems to fit the pattern that the criteria were applied more strictly in the North, so there is a bit more relaxation being introduced now.
But with Wrexham County Borough being 50k people and 200sqm, I can live with 50 being adjusted - they are likely generally to be the right ones.
So I reckon it's going to end up with getting on for all the residential roads at 20mph within community boundaries. And I'll take that as good progress.
Now, how the fuckety-fuck do I get Mansfield done? It's going to need something like a honey trap and blackmail.
"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
Now, now ladies . Handbags at Dawn (copyright Iain Dale) is more decorous.
On a separate point, I see that Wrexham (North Wales) looks to be changing 50 stretches of road back to 50mp default.
That, Conwy (15-20 for review) and Monmouthshire (none for review) seems to fit the pattern that the criteria were applied more strictly in the North, so there is a bit more relaxation being introduced now.
But with Wrexham County Borough being 50k people and 200sqm, I can live with 50 being adjusted - they are likely generally to be the right ones.
So I reckon it's going to end up with getting on for all the residential roads at 20mph within community boundaries. And I'll take that as good progress.
Now, how the fuckety-fuck do I get Mansfield done?
20mph for all purely residential routes would be fine (and in the real world, make very little difference).
The big problem in Wales was the blanket imposition across all routes, including a number of major arterial routes that happened to have the odd house on them. This also incidentally included adding wider 30 and 40 limits around them, without asking anyone. Which slowed traffic considerably and was simply not sensible.
Bypasses would have been a better solution but the Welsh government don't care about the areas outside the Valleys so have decided to stop paying for them.
"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
Now, now ladies . Handbags at Dawn (copyright Iain Dale) is more decorous.
On a separate point, I see that Wrexham (North Wales) looks to be changing 50 stretches of road back to 50mp default.
That, Conwy (15-20 for review) and Monmouthshire (none for review) seems to fit the pattern that the criteria were applied more strictly in the North, so there is a bit more relaxation being introduced now.
But with Wrexham County Borough being 50k people and 200sqm, I can live with 50 being adjusted - they are likely generally to be the right ones.
So I reckon it's going to end up with getting on for all the residential roads at 20mph within community boundaries. And I'll take that as good progress.
Now, how the fuckety-fuck do I get Mansfield done? It's going to need something like a honey trap and blackmail.
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.
Since Brexit, there’s no reason why we can’t rename VAT to Purchase Tax. It would confuse the Trumpbaby.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Support Ukraine to defeat Russia was the plan.
Ending the war by surrender is worse than continuing the war, not an improvement.
Nice try on your first point. If you are right then Europe will carrry on executing their cunning plan, and Ukraine will be independent, free and safe. Hope you are right.
Your second point misses my point. What Trump will perhaps achieve is not the execution of his plan, but will flush out the better alternatives that Europe has been hiding away for so long. If they have not got any, it is hard to criticise a sub optimal plan.
It seems that the new US view of "free trade" is that no tariffs OR taxes ought to apply to US goods and services sold overseas. Even assuming we were willing to go along with such a crazy approach it would greatly harm UK businesses, or completely demolish the tax base. We couldn't do it, so the only rational thing to do would be to cease trading with the US. Trump et al. are on a path if they go through with their threats where international trade gets completley upended.
Canadians are already boycotting US goods, I can see us being in similar position quite soon.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Support Ukraine to defeat Russia was the plan.
Ending the war by surrender is worse than continuing the war, not an improvement.
Nice try on your first point. If you are right then Europe will carrry on executing their cunning plan, and Ukraine will be independent, free and safe. Hope you are right.
Your second point misses my point. What Trump will perhaps achieve is not the execution of his plan, but will flush out the better alternatives that Europe has been hiding away for so long. If they have not got any, it is hard to criticise a sub optimal plan.
Again, what plan? What plan has he shown any sign of having?
You are making an assumption there that I simply do not see being supported by the information we have.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Bad guys throughout history have forced others to focus minds and form coalitions. Napoleon forced the continental powers to put aside their differences. OPEC in the 70s forced the West to take energy efficiency and independence seriously. The threat of communist revolution forced capitalist governments to introduce social policies.
Putin has had a similar, though still as yet incomplete, galvanising effect on the European defence establishment,
One problem with Trump's plan is that it *won't* end the war; it will just end it for Trump's period in office, and then there will be another one. I think he's playing self-serving games, as the USA used to in the late 19C (Spanish War, Mexican War) as his Victorian heroes did.
And in the meantime the occupied part of Ukraine is likely to be like the occupied Sudeten land in WW2,or the Stalin occupied Ukraine after WW2. *
Unless Europe manages something spectacular (I live in hope).
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
If I am right, Trump doesn't need a plan. he needs to propose a plan, the effect of which is to galvanise others. Yes, this may end up in sellout. But only if, in truth, Europe doesn'r care enough to sort it a better way.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Bad guys throughout history have forced others to focus minds and form coalitions. Napoleon forced the continental powers to put aside their differences. OPEC in the 70s forced the West to take energy efficiency and independence seriously. The threat of communist revolution forced capitalist governments to introduce social policies.
Putin has had a similar, though still as yet incomplete, galvanising effect on the European defence establishment,
The problem with Trumps plan is that it *won't* end the war, it will just end it for Trump's period in office, and then there will be another one.
And in the meantime the occupied part of Ukraine is likely to be like the occupied Sudeten land in WW2,or the Stalin occupied Ukraine after WW2. *
Unless Europe manages something spectacular (I live in hope).
The Sudetenland was treated as part of Germany and dominated by German speakers. Do you mean the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia?
"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.
Somebody works hard all their life to provide for their family and the vultures are just waiting to get at it rather than actually helping themselves, prefer to get other people's hard earned cash. Is it any wonder the UK is F**ked.
"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.
A tiny amount not consistent while more low income pensioners succumb to pneumonia also adding to pressure on NHS
Actually infants are more likely to succumb to pneumonia than pensioners of any age.
So if you were to do the policy based on need, then it universally being granted to all infants would make more sense.
But infants don't vote.
Er, that pneumonia thing changed many years back. Much smaller infant death rates (if that's what you mean by 'succumb') than old people now. And that's worldwide - so much more weight on childhood disease than in, say, the UK [edit: intuitively, but on second thoughts one would need to check that].
Anybody who says they prefer Putin over Starmer will be reported to Prevent, I have your email addresses and your IP addresses, the Online Safety Act commands me to make such a referral.
I think we can all recognise that Clarkson was (possibly like yourself) indulging in a little extreme hyperbole (is it possible to be extremely hyperbolic?). The best way to think of Clarkson is like a more intelligent Leon, except he has a lot of followers, and he doesn't believe in Brexit or aliens.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
If I am right, Trump doesn't need a plan. he needs to propose a plan, the effect of which is to galvanise others. Yes, this may end up in sellout. But only if, in truth, Europe doesn'r care enough to sort it a better way.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Support Ukraine to defeat Russia was the plan.
Ending the war by surrender is worse than continuing the war, not an improvement.
Nice try on your first point. If you are right then Europe will carrry on executing their cunning plan, and Ukraine will be independent, free and safe. Hope you are right.
Your second point misses my point. What Trump will perhaps achieve is not the execution of his plan, but will flush out the better alternatives that Europe has been hiding away for so long. If they have not got any, it is hard to criticise a sub optimal plan.
I think you make a fair, if depressing, point. It might not be a big thing, but at the very least, Europe needs to insist that whatever deal is done, Russia doesn't get to come back to the sporting and cultural world. If that means Europe boycotting the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics, then so be it.
"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
Now, now ladies . Handbags at Dawn (copyright Iain Dale) is more decorous.
On a separate point, I see that Wrexham (North Wales) looks to be changing 50 stretches of road back to 50mp default.
That, Conwy (15-20 for review) and Monmouthshire (none for review) seems to fit the pattern that the criteria were applied more strictly in the North, so there is a bit more relaxation being introduced now.
But with Wrexham County Borough being 50k people and 200sqm, I can live with 50 being adjusted - they are likely generally to be the right ones.
So I reckon it's going to end up with getting on for all the residential roads at 20mph within community boundaries. And I'll take that as good progress.
Now, how the fuckety-fuck do I get Mansfield done?
20mph for all purely residential routes would be fine (and in the real world, make very little difference).
The big problem in Wales was the blanket imposition across all routes, including a number of major arterial routes that happened to have the odd house on them. This also incidentally included adding wider 30 and 40 limits around them, without asking anyone. Which slowed traffic considerably and was simply not sensible.
Bypasses would have been a better solution but the Welsh government don't care about the areas outside the Valleys so have decided to stop paying for them.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole, but aiui it *wasn't* a blanket imposition. That was the anti-lobby propaganda, and especially when the Conservatives turned their coat from demanding that it be done more quickly, to creating a culture war about it - including constant use of that misleading language.
There was a careful process, and a year for Councils to propose exceptions.
I can link a 45 minute post-project evaluation video if you like.
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.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Bad guys throughout history have forced others to focus minds and form coalitions. Napoleon forced the continental powers to put aside their differences. OPEC in the 70s forced the West to take energy efficiency and independence seriously. The threat of communist revolution forced capitalist governments to introduce social policies.
Putin has had a similar, though still as yet incomplete, galvanising effect on the European defence establishment,
The problem with Trumps plan is that it *won't* end the war, it will just end it for Trump's period in office, and then there will be another one.
And in the meantime the occupied part of Ukraine is likely to be like the occupied Sudeten land in WW2,or the Stalin occupied Ukraine after WW2. *
Unless Europe manages something spectacular (I live in hope).
Noted, but the upside of Trump's 'plan' is it requires Europe to do its job, without which your gloomy prediction comes true. Among the people who spotted this more or less at once is Keir Starmer, whose next few months as PM will possibly make or break him.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
If I am right, Trump doesn't need a plan. he needs to propose a plan, the effect of which is to galvanise others. Yes, this may end up in sellout. But only if, in truth, Europe doesn'r care enough to sort it a better way.
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.
Actually I posted several months ago that it might be a good idea to use our Brexit Freedoms to replace VAT with an Australian-style sales tax.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
The status quo ante from Biden and Europe was to maintain pressure on Russia until it buckled. By and large this also had the support of Ukraine itself.
"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
Now, now ladies . Handbags at Dawn (copyright Iain Dale) is more decorous.
On a separate point, I see that Wrexham (North Wales) looks to be changing 50 stretches of road back to 50mp default.
That, Conwy (15-20 for review) and Monmouthshire (none for review) seems to fit the pattern that the criteria were applied more strictly in the North, so there is a bit more relaxation being introduced now.
But with Wrexham County Borough being 50k people and 200sqm, I can live with 50 being adjusted - they are likely generally to be the right ones.
So I reckon it's going to end up with getting on for all the residential roads at 20mph within community boundaries. And I'll take that as good progress.
Now, how the fuckety-fuck do I get Mansfield done?
20mph for all purely residential routes would be fine (and in the real world, make very little difference).
The big problem in Wales was the blanket imposition across all routes, including a number of major arterial routes that happened to have the odd house on them. This also incidentally included adding wider 30 and 40 limits around them, without asking anyone. Which slowed traffic considerably and was simply not sensible.
Bypasses would have been a better solution but the Welsh government don't care about the areas outside the Valleys so have decided to stop paying for them.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole, but it *wasn't* a blanket imposition. That was the anti-lobby propaganda, and especially when the Conservatives turned their coat from demanding that it be done more quickly, to creating a culture war about it - including constant use of that misleading language.
There was a careful process, and a year for Councils to propose exceptions.
I can link a 45 minute post-project evaluation video if you like.
You can link to it by all means, but I'll take the evidence of my own eyes driving about Wales. For example, whoever thought a 20mph limit was needed on the A44 in Llangurig when all bar four houses are on a separate road clearly hadn't bothered to do any evaluation at all. And bringing in the 30 limit for two miles beyond it was absolute lunacy.
Equally, I can see why a 20mph limit on St David's Road in Aberystwyth makes no difference, as you never get to do more than 10mph anyway.
Maybe there should have been a process, but in far too many places it's very clear either there wasn't, or that no thought had been given to negative impacts of the changes being brought in.
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.
Since Brexit, there’s no reason why we can’t rename VAT to Purchase Tax. It would confuse the Trumpbaby.
Or we could call it the Fair And Reasonable Tariff tax, or FART for short.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
If I am right, Trump doesn't need a plan. he needs to propose a plan, the effect of which is to galvanise others. Yes, this may end up in sellout. But only if, in truth, Europe doesn'r care enough to sort it a better way.
How do you propose a plan if you don't have one?
You'll never make senior management at this rate.
Too late, I'm chief executive of an international education company.
I'll never become boss of an academy chain, of course. I'm an experienced teacher.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
The status quo ante from Biden and Europe was to maintain pressure on Russia until it buckled. By and large this also had the support of Ukraine itself.
The "until it buckled" was questionable. Biden had a tendency of going soft whenever it looked like Russia might lose.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
If the dumb clown can make a dollar out of it he will stitch them up like a kipper. Time Europe told him to take his USA and stick it up his fat arse.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Support Ukraine to defeat Russia was the plan.
Ending the war by surrender is worse than continuing the war, not an improvement.
Nice try on your first point. If you are right then Europe will carrry on executing their cunning plan, and Ukraine will be independent, free and safe. Hope you are right.
Your second point misses my point. What Trump will perhaps achieve is not the execution of his plan, but will flush out the better alternatives that Europe has been hiding away for so long. If they have not got any, it is hard to criticise a sub optimal plan.
I think you make a fair, if depressing, point. It might not be a big thing, but at the very least, Europe needs to insist that whatever deal is done, Russia doesn't get to come back to the sporting and cultural world. If that means Europe boycotting the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics, then so be it.
Excellent idea. Boycotting both would affect the USA financially, and hopefully embarrass them as well.
"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.
As a soon to be pensioner married to a pensioner I have to agree. We don't need the money. It usually got spent on Christmas presents for grandkids. Also my wife is over 75 so we can qualify for a free license. Not sure I will though it is unfair.
If that is the TV licence the 75 age exemption ended in 2020 unless you receive pension credit
Yes agreed, I misread an or for an and. Hay hoe.
Any chance to punch a pensioner is popular on here.
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.
Actually I posted several months ago that it might be a good idea to use our Brexit Freedoms to replace VAT with an Australian-style sales tax.
WTF is the difference giving it another name
I now realise it was a (fair enough, moderately humorous) quip about Brexiteers replacing free movement with an “Australian-style points system”
"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
Now, now ladies . Handbags at Dawn (copyright Iain Dale) is more decorous.
On a separate point, I see that Wrexham (North Wales) looks to be changing 50 stretches of road back to 50mp default.
That, Conwy (15-20 for review) and Monmouthshire (none for review) seems to fit the pattern that the criteria were applied more strictly in the North, so there is a bit more relaxation being introduced now.
But with Wrexham County Borough being 50k people and 200sqm, I can live with 50 being adjusted - they are likely generally to be the right ones.
So I reckon it's going to end up with getting on for all the residential roads at 20mph within community boundaries. And I'll take that as good progress.
Now, how the fuckety-fuck do I get Mansfield done?
20mph for all purely residential routes would be fine (and in the real world, make very little difference).
The big problem in Wales was the blanket imposition across all routes, including a number of major arterial routes that happened to have the odd house on them. This also incidentally included adding wider 30 and 40 limits around them, without asking anyone. Which slowed traffic considerably and was simply not sensible.
Bypasses would have been a better solution but the Welsh government don't care about the areas outside the Valleys so have decided to stop paying for them.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole, but it *wasn't* a blanket imposition. That was the anti-lobby propaganda, and especially when the Conservatives turned their coat from demanding that it be done more quickly, to creating a culture war about it - including constant use of that misleading language.
There was a careful process, and a year for Councils to propose exceptions.
I can link a 45 minute post-project evaluation video if you like.
You can link to it by all means, but I'll take the evidence of my own eyes driving about Wales. For example, whoever thought a 20mph limit was needed on the A44 in Llangurig when all bar four houses are on a separate road clearly hadn't bothered to do any evaluation at all. And bringing in the 30 limit for two miles beyond it was absolute lunacy.
Equally, I can see why a 20mph limit on St David's Road in Aberystwyth makes no difference, as you never get to do more than 10mph anyway.
Maybe there should have been a process, but in far too many places it's very clear either there wasn't, or that no thought had been given to negative impacts of the changes being brought in.
Indeed - that's why there was a later review process possible as well, which is what has happened. There's also a bit of analysis of things that were not as well executed as could have been - I think down to Covid in part. One of these was the order of some comms.
(But of course - I can't question your personal account, and accept that things went wrong in that case - as I was not there.)
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.
Actually I posted several months ago that it might be a good idea to use our Brexit Freedoms to replace VAT with an Australian-style sales tax.
It was a pish suggestion then and is a shit suggestion now.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
The status quo ante from Biden and Europe was to maintain pressure on Russia until it buckled. By and large this also had the support of Ukraine itself.
If this is true and effective I will be delighted to see Europe continue to put it into effect. USA and Russia talks can't tell Ukraine or Europe waght to do.
My own tentative view is that if that was the plan it wasn't working, and must be made to work if it can. But I think the real deal as on 20th January was a slowly losing attrition continuation without a further future in sight. I would be very pleased to be wrong.
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.
Right now I think we can usefully deploy no more than a brigade (about 5,000 bods max), as we don’t have the logistical support for anything more.
I’ve no idea how long recruiting, training and equipping the numbers to increase that would take, let alone the cost, but it can’t be either cheap or quick.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
If I am right, Trump doesn't need a plan. he needs to propose a plan, the effect of which is to galvanise others. Yes, this may end up in sellout. But only if, in truth, Europe doesn'r care enough to sort it a better way.
How do you propose a plan if you don't have one?
You'll never make senior management at this rate.
Too late, I'm chief executive of an international education company.
I'll never become boss of an academy chain, of course. I'm an experienced teacher.
I see where you've gone wrong now. Having experience of the field is basically cheating.
You'll never make proper senior management. With a certification in proper management. Which you can wave at people as you fail upwards.
"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.
A tiny amount not consistent while more low income pensioners succumb to pneumonia also adding to pressure on NHS
Actually infants are more likely to succumb to pneumonia than pensioners of any age.
So if you were to do the policy based on need, then it universally being granted to all infants would make more sense.
But infants don't vote.
Infants likely have 2 parents on at least minimum wage and probably average wage or more paying their heating bills plus child benefit.
Pensioners on just state pension with no winter fuel allowance and who are widows or a widower have 1 below minimum wage income to pay their winter heating bills
Giorgia Meloni is the only one who has had the decency to dress up like a WW1 photo-op. Italians - always so stylish.
It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall. Who’s the talker that fills all the awkward gaps (I reckon Macron)? Who’s the contrarian always challenging what the others are saying (Meloni? Tusk?). Who’s the quiet studied one that everyone turns to when they want to know if they’re in agreement (UvdL)? Where does Starmer fit in this?
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.
One can have too much butter.
Not much benefit though.
Different bits of government expenditure have different GDP multipliers. That is because some forms of government spending get recycled into the economy multiple times, generating GDP growth.
In terms of GDP multipliers Defence spending is amongst the worst, with a multiplier of 0.4-0.6 (anything less that 1 meaning the amount of GDP generated is less than that which is spent). There are valid reasons to spend on defence, but in economic terms it is what we might consider chucking money in a hole.
There are forms of government spending that have GDP multipliers well over 1, so in theory are effectively self funding. Health and Education are the 2 obvious ones, at 3.6 and 2.4 respectively in a recent report.
The same goes for tax cuts etc. Tax cuts for the rich have a much lower GDP multiplier as the rich can afford to save than tax cuts for the poor (such as the LD policy to raise the personal allowance) as the poor tend to spend rather than save. Similarly cutting government expenditure on welfare tends to shrink the economy.
Sure, we need to be physically secure and safe, but in economic terms butter beats guns hands down.
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.
One can have too much butter.
Wait. What?
1 - The 11% cut is an "up to" number, aiui.
2 - It won't be anything like £33bn extra per annum - that's for the birds. Lammy was talking about "need to work towards 2.5%".
2.5% is an extra ~£5bn pa. Even 2.7%, which is where I would put it, is only an extra ~£10bn pa. That can be met by a couple of changes like tweaking tax relief on pensions.
Or a more cunning suggestion that tax threshold freezes be extended, but not implemented if growth happens. I'm not sure how that works in the fiscal modelling, but I think it does. And it leaves RR saying either "look how well the economy grew and we can cancel the increase", or "we need to maintain this" and leaving everyone able to know what will be happening - so no flippety-floppety-slapping around and scaring the horses.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
The status quo ante from Biden and Europe was to maintain pressure on Russia until it buckled. By and large this also had the support of Ukraine itself.
If this is true and effective I will be delighted to see Europe continue to put it into effect. USA and Russia talks can't tell Ukraine or Europe waght to do.
My own tentative view is that if that was the plan it wasn't working, and must be made to work if it can. But I think the real deal as on 20th January was a slowly losing attrition continuation without a further future in sight. I would be very pleased to be wrong.
The deal on the 4th November was that Russia had failed in pretty much all its strategic objectives and was suffering badly from the economic consequences of sanctions, but couldn't withdraw because the damage to the reputation of the governing clique might well have involved lampposts and sodomy by a used bayonet.
Putin was hanging on hoping for regime change in America leading to a President who liked him coming to power.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
The plan was to “keep buggering on.” What other plan in war can there be?
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
If I am right, Trump doesn't need a plan. he needs to propose a plan, the effect of which is to galvanise others. Yes, this may end up in sellout. But only if, in truth, Europe doesn'r care enough to sort it a better way.
How do you propose a plan if you don't have one?
You'll never make senior management at this rate.
Too late, I'm chief executive of an international education company.
I'll never become boss of an academy chain, of course. I'm an experienced teacher.
I see where you've gone wrong now. Having experience of the field is basically cheating.
You'll never make proper senior management. With a certification in proper management. Which you can wave at people as you fail upwards.
I did actually look at doing a management course with the CIPD.
But ultimately I decided I had better things to spend the money on.
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.
One can have too much butter.
Wait. What?
1 - The 11% cut is an "up to" number, aiui.
2 - It won't be anything like £33bn extra per annum - that's for the birds. Lammy was talking about "need to work towards 2.5%".
2.5% is an extra ~£5bn pa. Even 2.7%, which is where I would put it, is only an extra ~£10bn pa. That can be met by a couple of changes like tweaking tax relief on pensions.
Or a more cunning suggestion that tax threshold freezes be extended, but not implemented if growth happens. I'm not sure how that works in the fiscal modelling, but I think it does. And it leaves RR saying either "look how well the economy grew and we can cancel the increase", or "we need to maintain this" and leaving everyone able to know what will be happening - so no flippety-floppety-slapping around and scaring the horses.
It was the butter statement I was questioning. The rest is neither here nor there in the grand scheme.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Support Ukraine to defeat Russia was the plan.
Ending the war by surrender is worse than continuing the war, not an improvement.
Nice try on your first point. If you are right then Europe will carrry on executing their cunning plan, and Ukraine will be independent, free and safe. Hope you are right.
Your second point misses my point. What Trump will perhaps achieve is not the execution of his plan, but will flush out the better alternatives that Europe has been hiding away for so long. If they have not got any, it is hard to criticise a sub optimal plan.
I think you make a fair, if depressing, point. It might not be a big thing, but at the very least, Europe needs to insist that whatever deal is done, Russia doesn't get to come back to the sporting and cultural world. If that means Europe boycotting the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics, then so be it.
Excellent idea. Boycotting both would affect the USA financially, and hopefully embarrass them as well.
It's a happy coincidence that they are in the states. Whether Spain et al would go for it with football, I don't know, but it would be funny if it all went wrong for Infantino.
Nothing more silly than European governments complaining about the US not providing them with security. They shouldn't have run down their own militaries.
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.
Trump is an ignoramus, who will do us enormous harm, and william is celebrating the fact.
I have been occupied in stuff for a few days, and out of touch and a bit distant from the media and PB. Sorry if I am the millionth to have had this thought about Mr Trump.
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
We do not know that he has an actual *plan* for ending the Ukraine war. We know he wants to talk to the man who started it and refuses to end it, which is not at all the same thing.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
If I am right, Trump doesn't need a plan. he needs to propose a plan, the effect of which is to galvanise others. Yes, this may end up in sellout. But only if, in truth, Europe doesn'r care enough to sort it a better way.
How do you propose a plan if you don't have one?
You'll never make senior management at this rate.
Too late, I'm chief executive of an international education company.
I'll never become boss of an academy chain, of course. I'm an experienced teacher.
I see where you've gone wrong now. Having experience of the field is basically cheating.
You'll never make proper senior management. With a certification in proper management. Which you can wave at people as you fail upwards.
I did actually look at doing a management course with the CIPD.
But ultimately I decided I had better things to spend the money on.
You need more ITIL in your life. Maybe some PRINCE2 if you're even more retro. One of the few things I look forward to in our AI-overlord future is some generated avatar laying waste to the certification racket.
Comments
Canadians are already boycotting US goods, I can see us being in similar position quite soon.
We do need much stronger conventional defences, because the Russians need to know that if they try to conquer our allies they will get the living shit beaten out of them. Essentially, their leader is a bloodthirsty emperor and most of their people are eager accomplices in his behaviour, who only understand brute strength. If presented with insufficient resolve then they will devour Europe a chunk at a time, with actual force or the threat of it, and the only means we'll have left to stop them is to threaten to retaliate with nuclear weapons. That's not somewhere we want to be going.
The original allies. This time, I hope we don't let Poland down.
a) wanting the money
b) the Loser-in-Chief wanting to give his loser supporters a scapegoat to blame.
If someone were to explain to DJT the functioning of VAT with the intelligence of a Cambridge seminar and the simplicity of Janet and John, he'd still want an excuse to impose tariffs on the countries of Europe.
At least this screed doesn't refer to Fair And Reciprocal Tariffs like some of the earlier ones. That acronym presumably came from Musk.
Here domes and statues, spires and cranes cluster
Beside grain-scattered streets, barge-crowded water,
And residents from raw estates, brought down
The dead straight miles by stealing flat-faced trolleys,
Push through plate-glass swing doors to their desires—
Cheap suits, red kitchen-ware, sharp shoes, iced lollies,
Electric mixers, toasters, washers, driers—
A cut-price crowd, urban yet simple, dwelling
Where only salesmen and relations come
Within a terminate and fishy-smelling
Pastoral of ships up streets, the slave museum,
Tattoo-shops, consulates, grim head-scarfed wives;
I'm tired of them sucking out every penny out the economy.
In all sincerity- good luck. Sometimes, being the opposition still means you have a responsibility to fulfil. (One that Corbyn definitely failed over Salisbury, and EdM arguably failed over Syria.)
Cutting the private rented sector back down to size would take an immense amount of time and effort, and it's not going to happen. Instead, coming soon to a new build housing estate near you, build-to-let. Industrial scale rent farming to help meet the Government's housing targets. There'll be a larger percentage of the population in rented property, and a correspondingly higher housing benefit bill, when this lot get booted out than there was when they were elected.
Unless you've had a particularly bad experience of maladjusted four year olds.
I'm surprised it's not higher, tbh. 30% is a decent minority and with strong political leadership it could be built upon.
There's a strong isolationist consistency, even in Britain, that thinks we have no business doing anything military outside our own borders.
However, I don't think it's a decisive one.
They may think it normal to impose their view on ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/crr0gngkjrvt
So if you were to do the policy based on need, then it universally being granted to all infants would make more sense.
But infants don't vote.
https://news.sky.com/story/emergency-teams-responding-after-incident-involving-plane-during-landing-in-canada-toronto-pearson-airport-says-13311604
#votesat16justthestart
Trumps' downsides are obvious; and potentially deadly. I think he and his plutocratic oligarchy gangster friends are appalling.
But he general awfulness does not arise from a situation in which he is by his character derogating from planetary perfection.
Ask one question. There are lots of others but this will do. Trump has a plan for ending the Ukraine war. On 20th January, what was the plan of the EU/free Europe for ending it?
There wasn't one. It was going to go on indefinitely.
Ttrump's odd quality is that he will get other outfits to ask, and answer, questions they were very comfortable not answering on 20th January. This is not all bad.
Ending the war by surrender is worse than continuing the war, not an improvement.
The big worry is that he will end up selling out the Ukrainians which would be both a moral disaster and a major strategic defeat for Europe and the US just so he can wave his undersized cock yelling he's got a deal - much as he did in Afghanistan.
Putin has had a similar, though still as yet incomplete, galvanising effect on the European defence establishment,
On a separate point, I see that Wrexham (North Wales) looks to be changing 50 stretches of road back to 50mp default.
That, Conwy (15-20 for review) and Monmouthshire (none for review) seems to fit the pattern that the criteria were applied more strictly in the North, so there is a bit more relaxation being introduced now.
But with Wrexham County Borough being 50k people and 200sqm, I can live with 50 being adjusted - they are likely generally to be the right ones.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vp4l1qe10o
So I reckon it's going to end up with getting on for all the residential roads at 20mph within community boundaries. And I'll take that as good progress.
Now, how the fuckety-fuck do I get Mansfield done? It's going to need something like a honey trap and blackmail.
The big problem in Wales was the blanket imposition across all routes, including a number of major arterial routes that happened to have the odd house on them. This also incidentally included adding wider 30 and 40 limits around them, without asking anyone. Which slowed traffic considerably and was simply not sensible.
Bypasses would have been a better solution but the Welsh government don't care about the areas outside the Valleys so have decided to stop paying for them.
Your second point misses my point. What Trump will perhaps achieve is not the execution of his plan, but will flush out the better alternatives that Europe has been hiding away for so long. If they have not got any, it is hard to criticise a sub optimal plan.
You are making an assumption there that I simply do not see being supported by the information we have.
And in the meantime the occupied part of Ukraine is likely to be like the occupied Sudeten land in WW2,or the Stalin occupied Ukraine after WW2. *
Unless Europe manages something spectacular (I live in hope).
https://ourworldindata.org/pneumonia
There was a careful process, and a year for Councils to propose exceptions.
I can link a 45 minute post-project evaluation video if you like.
But either way, I'm happy to await the outturn.
We'll get a 20mph on the Severn Bridges later
Equally, I can see why a 20mph limit on St David's Road in Aberystwyth makes no difference, as you never get to do more than 10mph anyway.
Maybe there should have been a process, but in far too many places it's very clear either there wasn't, or that no thought had been given to negative impacts of the changes being brought in.
I'll never become boss of an academy chain, of course. I'm an experienced teacher.
(But of course - I can't question your personal account, and accept that things went wrong in that case - as I was not there.)
Here's the link (warning: incoming Lee Waters):
https://youtu.be/C61sBe39u1c?t=526
My own tentative view is that if that was the plan it wasn't working, and must be made to work if it can. But I think the real deal as on 20th January was a slowly losing attrition continuation without a further future in sight. I would be very pleased to be wrong.
I’ve no idea how long recruiting, training and equipping the numbers to increase that would take, let alone the cost, but it can’t be either cheap or quick.
If we’re not going to wait for what’s likely now an irrelevant defence review (and for it to be relevant would mean its taking even longer), the we should do the no brainer stuff first.
For example, accelerating and increasing the program to build “warfighting” ammunition stocks.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-aiming-to-have-warfighting-levels-of-ammunition/
Or getting this into service in quantity:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/first-successful-firing-of-new-guided-cruise-missile/
You'll never make proper senior management. With a certification in proper management. Which you can wave at people as you fail upwards.
Pensioners on just state pension with no winter fuel allowance and who are widows or a widower have 1 below minimum wage income to pay their winter heating bills
Different bits of government expenditure have different GDP multipliers. That is because some forms of government spending get recycled into the economy multiple times, generating GDP growth.
In terms of GDP multipliers Defence spending is amongst the worst, with a multiplier of 0.4-0.6 (anything less that 1 meaning the amount of GDP generated is less than that which is spent). There are valid reasons to spend on defence, but in economic terms it is what we might consider chucking money in a hole.
There are forms of government spending that have GDP multipliers well over 1, so in theory are effectively self funding. Health and Education are the 2 obvious ones, at 3.6 and 2.4 respectively in a recent report.
The same goes for tax cuts etc. Tax cuts for the rich have a much lower GDP multiplier as the rich can afford to save than tax cuts for the poor (such as the LD policy to raise the personal allowance) as the poor tend to spend rather than save. Similarly cutting government expenditure on welfare tends to shrink the economy.
Sure, we need to be physically secure and safe, but in economic terms butter beats guns hands down.
2 - It won't be anything like £33bn extra per annum - that's for the birds. Lammy was talking about "need to work towards 2.5%".
2.5% is an extra ~£5bn pa. Even 2.7%, which is where I would put it, is only an extra ~£10bn pa. That can be met by a couple of changes like tweaking tax relief on pensions.
Or a more cunning suggestion that tax threshold freezes be extended, but not implemented if growth happens. I'm not sure how that works in the fiscal modelling, but I think it does. And it leaves RR saying either "look how well the economy grew and we can cancel the increase", or "we need to maintain this" and leaving everyone able to know what will be happening - so no flippety-floppety-slapping around and scaring the horses.
Putin was hanging on hoping for regime change in America leading to a President who liked him coming to power.
And most unfortunately, he got it.
But ultimately I decided I had better things to spend the money on.