Skip to content

I do worry about Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,622
edited August 12 in General
I do worry about Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com

It’s easy to make fun of Liz Truss but I do hope her nearest and dearest have words with her to come to terms with the trauma of being the shortest serving Prime Minister other than the Duke of Wellington’s shorter caretaker term.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,239
    Perhaps?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,114

    Perhaps?

    And perhaps not.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,233
    Yes, this is definitely weird rabbit-hole stuff. The sad irony is that she'll probably be the last Trump worshipper standing when the rest of MAGA have deserted him over Epstein.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,786
    FPT:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    One or two silly responses up thread in response to stories like this:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/delete-your-old-emails-to-help-save-water-environment-chiefs-urge-5Hjd8f6_2/

    Data decarbonisation is very much a thing and was starting to become a big part of my trade when I retired. The environmental costs of storing terabytes of information on servers which need to not only be permanently powered but often kept at specific levels of heat and humidity is huge. It's also worth pointing out a lot of this accumulated infornation will a) probably never be accessed and b) isn't governed by proper rules of retention allowing for deletion.

    In the old days, a bank or law firm would store two million boxes of paperwork and printouts down a salt mine in Cheshire where the environmental conditions are perfect for long term shortage but unfortunately even these tended to suffer from that I used to call the KGB syndrome where every file was stamped "to be preserved forever".

    Permanent preservation of historical records is or should be the responsibility of the network of record offices across the country but even they are short of space and there will be another influx of such records following local government reorganisation (will nobody think of the record managers?).

    As a famous exchange from the 1960s had it - "We want information - you won't get it - by hook or by crook, we will". If we of course deleted all tweets from 12 months back, we'd lose half the fun of sites like this.

    I find really hard to believe that storing emails uses that much power. A one terabyte SSD might use around 10W while being actively accessed and only a few 10s of milliwatts otherwise. This seems utterly trivial compared to, for example, the power used to run LLMs.
    Storage uses relatively trivial amounts of power. Even the servers that run Gmail and Google Drive are probably a rounding error in Google's energy bill.

    You can pack a 2U rack server full of SSDs and spinning rust and even at full load it will be pulling a few hundred watts, plus the associated cooling power. The CPUs used in these servers prioritise efficiency over performance, a bunch of medium performance low-power cores are fine for this kind of use.

    I have a server in my loft that stores 14TB of data on a RAID array, handles my email and provides file sharing. It pulls about 250w at max load, and it's an old system based on a relatively inefficient 2nd gen Intel platform. I could run a dozen of those from a single 240v domestic socket.

    An AI server will pull kilowatts easily. Some of NVidia's AI accelerators are specced for 1000W+ and a single server will contain multiple cards. It's not only the GPU chips being hungry, the large amounts of GDDR6/7 they have gulps down a lot of electrons. GDDR6 consumes roughly 100W per 24GB, so on an AI card with 96GB you're looking at 400W per card just for the memory. A server with five NVidia AI cards could easily require 10KW to run and keep it cool.

    Stack a few thousand of those in a datacentre and you're well into megawatt territory.
    These guys https://www.cerebras.ai/ will sell you a single chip the size of a Fab wafer that does AI compute at huge scale. Pulls 20kW per chip though!

  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,608
    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,235
    Taz said:

    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61

    I have never donated to The Good Law Project but I will be reading the Sturgeon book, for the same reason I read Spare.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,844

    Taz said:

    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61

    I have never donated to The Good Law Project but I will be reading the Sturgeon book, for the same reason I read Spare.
    Is it because your newsagent doesn't stock the Beano?
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
    Nah, she’s a Tory and some people are obsessed. We still hear how she ‘crashed the economy’ which she didn’t.

    As for the comment about restoring her reputation in the text, I assume that’s ironic.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,274
    Who does she mean? PM Cameron? MoL Boris? Danny Boyle? Ah, must be him as he's a republican like, erm, Liz Truss.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,235
    Omnium said:

    Taz said:

    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61

    I have never donated to The Good Law Project but I will be reading the Sturgeon book, for the same reason I read Spare.
    Is it because your newsagent doesn't stock the Beano?
    I've always been more of a Dandy man.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225

    Taz said:

    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61

    I have never donated to The Good Law Project but I will be reading the Sturgeon book, for the same reason I read Spare.
    After reading it you may well end up donating 👍

    I’ve just downloaded the Kevin Rowland autobiography on audible for my holiday. Supposed to be very good. A life more interesting that a self justifying politician. I can imagine her book would be on a par with Merkel’s based on the reviews.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,844

    Omnium said:

    Taz said:

    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61

    I have never donated to The Good Law Project but I will be reading the Sturgeon book, for the same reason I read Spare.
    Is it because your newsagent doesn't stock the Beano?
    I've always been more of a Dandy man.
    In my youth I used to flourish my Whizzer and Chips
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,235
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
    Nah, she’s a Tory and some people are obsessed. We still hear how she ‘crashed the economy’ which she didn’t.

    As for the comment about restoring her reputation in the text, I assume that’s ironic.
    I was told one of the reasons picked up in the focus groups of why they wont vote Tory is Liz Truss as they think the Tories might inflict somebody as bad as Truss on the country again.

    It's why Kemi/the Tories are denouncing Truss regularly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,114
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Taz said:

    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61

    I have never donated to The Good Law Project but I will be reading the Sturgeon book, for the same reason I read Spare.
    Is it because your newsagent doesn't stock the Beano?
    I've always been more of a Dandy man.
    In my youth I used to flourish my Whizzer and Chips
    I wasn't much of a comic character.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,316
    edited August 12
    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    She’s spent a fair bit of time out in the US doing the conservative conference circuit, which is a big thing there even in non-election years. She’ll be making a fair few dollars in speaking fees, more than she ever earned as PM.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,688
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
    Nah, she’s a Tory and some people are obsessed. We still hear how she ‘crashed the economy’ which she didn’t.

    As for the comment about restoring her reputation in the text, I assume that’s ironic.
    The way she handled defeat in SW Norfolk was graceless and charmless. I genuinely think she has mental health issues, in any event the far right nonsense she has been spouting for the US market is drivel. For her own sanity, and lets face it, for ours, she needs to take a total break from politics indefinitely.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,387

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
    Nah, she’s a Tory and some people are obsessed. We still hear how she ‘crashed the economy’ which she didn’t.

    As for the comment about restoring her reputation in the text, I assume that’s ironic.
    I was told one of the reasons picked up in the focus groups of why they wont vote Tory is Liz Truss as they think the Tories might inflict somebody as bad as Truss on the country again.

    It's why Kemi/the Tories are denouncing Truss regularly.
    That only works if the Great British Public are listening to a word the Conservatives say- which they mostly aren't.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,114
    Here's one for Dura.

    BYD is coming with a ridiculous 3,000 hp electric supercar
    https://electrek.co/2025/08/09/byd-ridiculous-3000-hp-electric-supercar/
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,387
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    She’s spent a fair bit of time out in the US doing the conservative conference circuit, which is a big thing there even in non-election years. She’ll be making a fair few dollars in speaking fees, more than she ever earned as PM.
    The question which we can't answer from this distance is what's driving Truss right now? Is it the fees (in which case, I'd be advising CCHQ to find a donor to pay her whatever it costs for her to not speak), or the attention? I'm uncomfortably reminded of the fate of Howard Davidson after his defrocking.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,338

    Liz Truss has gone all PB Plato.

    As I recall, even in her final spiral, @Plato retained a certain charm.

    It rather reminded me of this - "advancing years, without in any way impairing his verbal fluency, disengaged the operation of his mind from the content of his speech,"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,986
    edited August 12
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    She’s spent a fair bit of time out in the US doing the conservative conference circuit, which is a big thing there even in non-election years. She’ll be making a fair few dollars in speaking fees, more than she ever earned as PM.
    To be fair, she only earned about £21,000 during her time as Prime Minister, and more than half of that came from being an MP.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,956
    Nigelb said:

    Here's one for Dura.

    BYD is coming with a ridiculous 3,000 hp electric supercar
    https://electrek.co/2025/08/09/byd-ridiculous-3000-hp-electric-supercar/

    Torque at the wheels on that will be incredible.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    Cicero said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
    Nah, she’s a Tory and some people are obsessed. We still hear how she ‘crashed the economy’ which she didn’t.

    As for the comment about restoring her reputation in the text, I assume that’s ironic.
    The way she handled defeat in SW Norfolk was graceless and charmless. I genuinely think she has mental health issues, in any event the far right nonsense she has been spouting for the US market is drivel. For her own sanity, and lets face it, for ours, she needs to take a total break from politics indefinitely.
    If she is spouting driver for money in the US not quite sure how it affects us our our sanity. If anything it keeps her in the US.

    She handled her defeat with all the grace and charm I think we expeced. The title of her book was "10 years to save the west" !!

    You are right, she probably does need a break from politics. However that does not pay the bills.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
    Nah, she’s a Tory and some people are obsessed. We still hear how she ‘crashed the economy’ which she didn’t.

    As for the comment about restoring her reputation in the text, I assume that’s ironic.
    I was told one of the reasons picked up in the focus groups of why they wont vote Tory is Liz Truss as they think the Tories might inflict somebody as bad as Truss on the country again.

    It's why Kemi/the Tories are denouncing Truss regularly.
    That only works if the Great British Public are listening to a word the Conservatives say- which they mostly aren't.
    They dont really have much to say. When they criticise the govt for their various policy failings you cannot help but think what did they do about it when they were in charge for the past 14 years. Be it the boats, govt spending, growth or any number of issues.
  • JSpringJSpring Posts: 107
    The problem with the 2012 opening ceremony (and I suppose it's not one that Truss can point out given her present political views) is that it 'celebrated' the NHS even though the vast amounts of money the ceremony cost could have been better spent, particularly at that time, on the NHS.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,532
    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    Some people find it easier to belittle retired opponents than deal with present opponents or their own faults. She, for all her faults or graces, should be left alone now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,479
    Nigelb said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Taz said:

    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61

    I have never donated to The Good Law Project but I will be reading the Sturgeon book, for the same reason I read Spare.
    Is it because your newsagent doesn't stock the Beano?
    I've always been more of a Dandy man.
    In my youth I used to flourish my Whizzer and Chips
    I wasn't much of a comic character.
    Eagle for me. I liked Dan Dare. And The Scout.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,664
    I happen not to have loved the bouncing nurses but Truss has become a joke. Sad to see. She was our PM once after all.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,235
    viewcode said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    Some people find it easier to belittle retired opponents than deal with present opponents or their own faults. She, for all her faults or graces, should be left alone now.
    Lest we forget she's currently taking legal action against Sir Keir Starmer.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/01/10/how-to-make-politics-better-more-lawyers-getting-involved/
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,532

    Nigelb said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Taz said:

    An interesting take on Saint Nicola’s book

    ‘ the sturgeon book is for people who donate to the good law project. that’s the demographic.’

    https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1955264906774651156?s=61

    I have never donated to The Good Law Project but I will be reading the Sturgeon book, for the same reason I read Spare.
    Is it because your newsagent doesn't stock the Beano?
    I've always been more of a Dandy man.
    In my youth I used to flourish my Whizzer and Chips
    I wasn't much of a comic character.
    Eagle for me. I liked Dan Dare. And The Scout.
    ...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,508
    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,235

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    Not doubting you, but where do you get those figures from?

    As somebody who in about 18 months will have a kid ready to take his driving test I find this terrifying.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,372
    As one who'd listened to the informed, I was happy that the Cons selected Truss and then shocked by the speed of her demise. I'd expected 18 months of incompetence before the record defeat.
    I'm not convinced she was ever on this planet, she's been friends with fellow fruit loop, littlewood, since a student, and Cummings and Stewart both flagged her as nuts.
    The selection of Kemi just confirms the public's reservations.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,338
    Mortimer said:

    JSpring said:

    The problem with the 2012 opening ceremony (and I suppose it's not one that Truss can point out given her present political views) is that it 'celebrated' the NHS even though the vast amounts of money the ceremony cost could have been better spent, particularly at that time, on the NHS.

    Disagree.

    The money spent on the opening ceremony and the games themselves go lots of people into sport. Thats far better than spaffing it on the ever growing behemoth of the NHS.
    As ever, scale of spending is not being understood.

    The cost of the opening ceremony was £27 million pounds.

    The budget for the NHS (UK wide) in 2012 was £121,400 million pounds (roughly)

    So the opening ceremony was about 2 hours of spending on the NHS.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,479

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    To be brutal about it, it's also 18 years of public spending on someone who then dies horribly and expensively without contributing any tax. There's a fiscal and economic case too. "Serious injury" can cover lifelong disability and trauma.

    We were all shipped off to a cinema to watch videos of paraplegics and people burning to death when we were 16 - a rare bit of early intervention from the council. Still didn't stop a classmate wrapping a Clio round a tree.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,266
    Cicero said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
    Nah, she’s a Tory and some people are obsessed. We still hear how she ‘crashed the economy’ which she didn’t.

    As for the comment about restoring her reputation in the text, I assume that’s ironic.
    The way she handled defeat in SW Norfolk was graceless and charmless. I genuinely think she has mental health issues, in any event the far right nonsense she has been spouting for the US market is drivel. For her own sanity, and lets face it, for ours, she needs to take a total break from politics indefinitely.
    Only a party a out of touch as the Tories would have appointed her as leader. They are still as out of touch now. If they remain as out of touch they are finished in 2028/9.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,266

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    There is an argument for preventing young men from driving until they are age 25 and the risk assessing part of their brain is fully developed. Young women are more mature at 16 than young men at 24 IMHO.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,776
    I find all opening ceremonies annoying. It's a sports tournament, not a titting-about-fest. And forcing sports commentators to talk about something which is not sport is cruel to both commentator and listener.
    All you need is a bloke in a tie to say "I declare this open - now start doing sport".
    I'll make an exception for the Olympics, where I'll also allow some fella with a big torch to come running in and light a fire with it.

    That said, if someone checks back the comments from the opening ceremony of 2012, they'll find I briefly softened my position when 'Nimrod' was played. And ISTR the French ceremony started with some really French surrealism - I think I approved of that, though I might be misremembering.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,266
    Eabhal said:

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    To be brutal about it, it's also 18 years of public spending on someone who then dies horribly and expensively without contributing any tax. There's a fiscal and economic case too. "Serious injury" can cover lifelong disability and trauma.

    We were all shipped off to a cinema to watch videos of paraplegics and people burning to death when we were 16 - a rare bit of early intervention from the council. Still didn't stop a classmate wrapping a Clio round a tree.
    Was Dura Ace in your class?
  • PoodleInASlipstreamPoodleInASlipstream Posts: 454
    edited August 12

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.

    I find it frustrating we have graduated licences for motorcycles, but not cars. If someone under 24 cannot be trusted to ride a fast motorcycle, on which they may die if they make a mistake, they should not be permitted to drive a car that can kill multiple people if driven badly.

    There's been a notable lack of political will around fixing the problems with young drivers.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,986
    Mortimer said:

    JSpring said:

    The problem with the 2012 opening ceremony (and I suppose it's not one that Truss can point out given her present political views) is that it 'celebrated' the NHS even though the vast amounts of money the ceremony cost could have been better spent, particularly at that time, on the NHS.

    Disagree.

    The money spent on the opening ceremony and the games themselves go lots of people into sport. Thats far better than spaffing it on the ever growing behemoth of the NHS.
    That's an excellent point.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,776
    I'm probably three or four weeks late with this, but have we done this yet? King's Guards tribute to Ozzy Osborne:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDs0JlNfsE

    I like this a lot. But I'm slightly surprised by the extent by the size of the celebration of Ozzy. I would consider him equal in stature to Lemmy from Motorhead, who slipped away almost unnoticed while David Bowie was roundly lauded to almost Ozzy-like levels three weeks later. I'm not complaining - heavy metal deserves to be much more widely celebrated than it is - just slightly surprised.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,316
    Full 25 minute Truss interview with Ben Shapiro - as I’m sure everyone wants to watch it in full! :smiley:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgKoPfD1wTs
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,235
    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,093
    edited August 12
    The main lesson we need to learn from Mr Trump is not to vote for people like him :smile: .

    TBF I wasn't *that* keen on all of the Olympic Opening Ceremony. I was particularly uncomfortable with the 1950s nurses dancing.

    I felt that Danny Boyle ( .. the hills, the hills are ca-alling ..) did what Farage does, he glorified an imagined perfect age that never happened. 1950s were imprisonment in mental hospitals for life and iron lungs. He should have looked it in the eye.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,479

    Eabhal said:

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    To be brutal about it, it's also 18 years of public spending on someone who then dies horribly and expensively without contributing any tax. There's a fiscal and economic case too. "Serious injury" can cover lifelong disability and trauma.

    We were all shipped off to a cinema to watch videos of paraplegics and people burning to death when we were 16 - a rare bit of early intervention from the council. Still didn't stop a classmate wrapping a Clio round a tree.
    Was Dura Ace in your class?
    DA would've made that corner. I appreciate it's a special case but up where I'm from, it's a major reason why young people get hurt. Some of the best roads in the UK - even one of our teachers put their Audi TT into the heather on the way to school.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,316

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    She’s going to try and tax capital gains and inheritances as income, isn’t she?

    And send every investment fund and fund manager overseas, as well as killing business investment into the UK.

    https://x.com/mrfamilyoffice/status/1954829537788699054
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,106

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    The problem is that IHT and CGT are relatively small taxes. To get anywhere near the £40bn would require them to be transformed out of all recognition and the consequences of that for investment in the UK would be catastrophic
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,121
    kinabalu said:

    I happen not to have loved the bouncing nurses but Truss has become a joke. Sad to see. She was our PM once after all.

    It must be very hard to position yourself well if you are Truss following resignation as PM and then losing your seat, with little prospect of getting it back, and when you have brought this all on yourself by undiluted ineptitude.The merciful (though not useful) thing would be to bung her in the HoL from where, after about five years purdah she could emerge as a quiet voice on the thoughtful small state and sit on dull committees amending legislation on library tickets. I don't think she has a future as an entertainer like Widdecombe or Boris. But I suppose the USA has infinite niches for people who are sure they are right and that everyone else is wrong, but edifying it is not.

    For a moment I thought to her credit that at least she hasn't written a useless book, but shamelessly, she has. Of which the kindly Iain Dale says;

    What it wasn’t was a mea culpa. Yes, she admitted she made mistakes, but never quite gets round to detailing what those mistakes were. There’s always an explanation or an excuse as to why she herself wasn’t really to blame.

    Which says it all really.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,372
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    She’s a peripheral figure now. Not sure this is really noteworthy. There seems to be. A bit of an obsession with her in some quarters.

    I doubt there’s any way back for her into mainstream politics and she will become a figure similar to Lembit Opik.

    The difference is that she's carving out a space for herself in the US MAGA griftosphere.
    Nah, she’s a Tory and some people are obsessed. We still hear how she ‘crashed the economy’ which she didn’t.

    As for the comment about restoring her reputation in the text, I assume that’s ironic.
    I was told one of the reasons picked up in the focus groups of why they wont vote Tory is Liz Truss as they think the Tories might inflict somebody as bad as Truss on the country again.

    It's why Kemi/the Tories are denouncing Truss regularly.
    That only works if the Great British Public are listening to a word the Conservatives say- which they mostly aren't.
    They dont really have much to say. When they criticise the govt for their various policy failings you cannot help but think what did they do about it when they were in charge for the past 14 years. Be it the boats, govt spending, growth or any number of issues.
    Last 14 years? They just made it all worse
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,687
    rcs1000 said:

    On the young drivers with passengers thing, from my telematics auto insurance company, I can tell you that if you have three or four eighteen year olds in a car, it's about 10x more dangerous than one eighteen year old on their own.

    I would be supportive of a six or twelve month "transition" period (as we have in California) where you can drive yourself, and gain experience, before adding the massive distractions of having a bunch of friends in there with you.

    It's a no-brainer.

    Safe driving is habitual. Younger, inexperienced drivers need to concentrate more than older drivers and nothing could be more inimical to concentration than a car full of teenagers.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,559
    Scott_xP said:
    Why is she letting Jenrick meeting him?
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 5,198
    MattW said:

    The main lesson we need to learn from Mr Trump is not to vote for people like him :smile: .

    TBF I wasn't *that* keen on all of the Olympic Opening Ceremony. I was particularly uncomfortable with the 1950s nurses dancing.

    I felt that Danny Boyle ( .. the hills, the hills are ca-alling ..) did what Farage does, he glorified an imagined perfect age that never happened. 1950s were imprisonment in mental hospitals for life and iron lungs. He should have looked it in the eye.

    I think an Olympic opening ceremony by Charlie Brooker would reflect our history and future quite well.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,501

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,093
    edited August 12

    rcs1000 said:

    On the young drivers with passengers thing, from my telematics auto insurance company, I can tell you that if you have three or four eighteen year olds in a car, it's about 10x more dangerous than one eighteen year old on their own.

    I would be supportive of a six or twelve month "transition" period (as we have in California) where you can drive yourself, and gain experience, before adding the massive distractions of having a bunch of friends in there with you.

    It's a no-brainer.

    Safe driving is habitual. Younger, inexperienced drivers need to concentrate more than older drivers and nothing could be more inimical to concentration than a car full of teenagers.
    It's also a complex skill, that requires concentration and benefits from continual practice.

    Habits can also be bad - so we train ourselves to not be as good as we could be. One good example is the "open the door with your inside hand as that means you turn around and are more likely to look backwards and notice the car that is about to take your door off, or the cyclist you are about to put in hospital. Equally we design mobility lanes with parking positioned so close that dangerous door opening is enforced.

    An example from me is that one of my bad habits is not doing the blind spot check when I need to change lanes rapidly. Every several years I nearly change lanes into a vehicle I have not noticed. So for the current car I specced a blind spot sensor which lights up orange on the wing mirror.

    Another bad habit is that I sometimes do not indicate early enough for lane changes and off ramps. So I try and implement a discipline of at least 3 or 4 ticks before changing my direction.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    We are clearly in the leaking of a proposal to a tame/friendly paper to see the reaction to it phase.

    This wont be the first, wont be the last.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,865
    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    This is actually targeted at the unearned wealth of the boomer generation. So I'd have thought you would approve.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    Interesting the framing of the reporting of the chancellors dilemma and the headlines, "Reeves must raise tax"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn85vyd1epzo

    That is not what is being said, she also can cut spending too.

    Especially the burgeoning welfare bill although that will be hard politically especially with charities and NGO's complaining the current levels of UC are not enough and the demands to life the 2 child cap.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    Newcastle Falcons Rugger team have been acquired by Red Bull

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/czdy67656yqo
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,274
    Cookie said:

    I find all opening ceremonies annoying. It's a sports tournament, not a titting-about-fest. And forcing sports commentators to talk about something which is not sport is cruel to both commentator and listener.
    All you need is a bloke in a tie to say "I declare this open - now start doing sport".
    I'll make an exception for the Olympics, where I'll also allow some fella with a big torch to come running in and light a fire with it.

    That said, if someone checks back the comments from the opening ceremony of 2012, they'll find I briefly softened my position when 'Nimrod' was played. And ISTR the French ceremony started with some really French surrealism - I think I approved of that, though I might be misremembering.

    At the time I thought the Paris opening ceremony was all over the place and not as good as London's. Having recently rewatched parts of the official video, maybe Paris edged it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onP5-DKSbI4

    I think part of the problem was the French refusal to tell the broadcasters what was happening so it was all a bit of a mess with directors not knowing what to show and commentators struggling to recognise the 2008 bronze medallist handing the torch over.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,508

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.

    I find it frustrating we have graduated licences for motorcycles, but not cars. If someone under 24 cannot be trusted to ride a fast motorcycle, on which they may die if they make a mistake, they should not be permitted to drive a car that can kill multiple people if driven badly.

    There's been a notable lack of political will around fixing the problems with young drivers.

    My understanding is that a lot of deaths are caused by inexperienced drivers in relatvely small, low powered cars. One of the big things is young drivers not realising the handling differences between a driver on their own and 4x 18 year olds in a car. Something that is actually worse in smaller cars.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    Given they could not even get through some modest changes to the benefits budget, slowing the rate of growth not even a cut, with their majority then all of what you suggest, which is perfectly sensible, is not going to happen.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,508

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    Not doubting you, but where do you get those figures from?

    As somebody who in about 18 months will have a kid ready to take his driving test I find this terrifying.
    The UK Govs own figures.

    KSIs involving alcohol

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-involving-illegal-alcohol-levels-2023/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-involving-illegal-alcohol-levels-2023

    KSIs involving young drivers

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2023/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-younger-driver-factsheet-2023
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,501
    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    This is actually targeted at the unearned wealth of the boomer generation. So I'd have thought you would approve.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
    It's simply not going to raise enough money and will send wealthy people fleeing overseas. The non-dom changes have already caused a huge hole in the public finances, hitting long term investment two tax rises is going to cause an even bigger loss for the government.

    For every billion pounds in tax they raise they are going to take a billion out of the economy, if not more given that they will have to target the productive part meaning money that would otherwise be better used and result in a pretty good 1.5x economic multiplier now goes to the state which consumes. I wouldn't be surprised for every £1bn the government intends to raise by the maths it will only get around £0.5-0.6bn in additional revenue due to slower growth.

    Cutting spending is the only answer, it isn't beyond the wit of man to cut 2.5% out of the government budget.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,387

    Scott_xP said:
    Why is she letting Jenrick meeting him?
    Presumably roughly the same reason that the Leader of the Opposition isn't meeting the Veep.

    Extreme indolence.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,797

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.

    I find it frustrating we have graduated licences for motorcycles, but not cars. If someone under 24 cannot be trusted to ride a fast motorcycle, on which they may die if they make a mistake, they should not be permitted to drive a car that can kill multiple people if driven badly.

    There's been a notable lack of political will around fixing the problems with young drivers.

    I find the problem with further legislation is its is impossible back dated to when those in pushing the reforms would be afflicted, Its easy to apply restrictions to others and knowing that it is for their own good makes it easier but these rules will restrict the lives of future drivers much like the C1 vehicle unfairness is right now.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,532
    ohnotnow said:

    MattW said:

    The main lesson we need to learn from Mr Trump is not to vote for people like him :smile: .

    TBF I wasn't *that* keen on all of the Olympic Opening Ceremony. I was particularly uncomfortable with the 1950s nurses dancing.

    I felt that Danny Boyle ( .. the hills, the hills are ca-alling ..) did what Farage does, he glorified an imagined perfect age that never happened. 1950s were imprisonment in mental hospitals for life and iron lungs. He should have looked it in the eye.

    I think an Olympic opening ceremony by Charlie Brooker would reflect our history and future quite well.
    Whilst true, that was the last thing we wanted to do. Olympics are for mythologising a sanitised past and a bloody good tune, not "and here is the bit where we killed lots of civilians"
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,387
    Taz said:

    Interesting the framing of the reporting of the chancellors dilemma and the headlines, "Reeves must raise tax"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn85vyd1epzo

    That is not what is being said, she also can cut spending too.

    Especially the burgeoning welfare bill although that will be hard politically especially with charities and NGO's complaining the current levels of UC are not enough and the demands to life the 2 child cap.

    Then you have to say what you are going to cut.

    To save a billion pounds, you need twenty pounds a week from a million households. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it does mean identifying those people as individuals, not as part of a multiplication.

    Pretty much any spending cuts from here have to be ones that Osborne, Hammond, Sunak and Hunt weren't prepared to make.

    (And yes, the same thing applies to tax rises.)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,681
    MaxPB said:

    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    This is actually targeted at the unearned wealth of the boomer generation. So I'd have thought you would approve.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
    It's simply not going to raise enough money and will send wealthy people fleeing overseas. The non-dom changes have already caused a huge hole in the public finances, hitting long term investment two tax rises is going to cause an even bigger loss for the government.

    For every billion pounds in tax they raise they are going to take a billion out of the economy, if not more given that they will have to target the productive part meaning money that would otherwise be better used and result in a pretty good 1.5x economic multiplier now goes to the state which consumes. I wouldn't be surprised for every £1bn the government intends to raise by the maths it will only get around £0.5-0.6bn in additional revenue due to slower growth.

    Cutting spending is the only answer, it isn't beyond the wit of man to cut 2.5% out of the government budget.
    5% should be a dawdle and 10% possible
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,093
    edited August 12
    Criminology graduate, of all things:

    (Note: Australian DUI limit is the same as in Scotland. In England this is 2x the limit plus a smidge.)

    A British backpacker has pleaded guilty to killing a man in Australia after hitting him while riding an e-scooter with an alcohol level more than three times the legal limit.

    Alicia Kemp, 25, from Redditch, Worcestershire, had been drinking with a friend on a Saturday afternoon in May when she was kicked out of a bar because the two of them were drunk, the court heard earlier.

    The pair hired an e-scooter in the evening, and Kemp was driving at speeds of 20 to 25km/h (12 to 15mph) when she hit 51-year-old Thanh Phan from behind on a pavement in Perth's city centre.

    The father-of-two hit his head on the pavement and died in hospital from a brain bleed two days later.

    Kemp's passenger was also hurt in the crash - sustaining a fractured skull and broken nose - but her injuries were not life-threatening.

    In Perth's Magistrates Court on Monday, Kemp - appearing via video link - pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death while intoxicated. The charge carries a maximum 20-year prison term

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0e999y7vq2o
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,532
  • eekeek Posts: 30,888

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    So that’s fixed £2bn at most from the deficit where is the other £38bn coming from
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    viewcode said:
    The Doctor Dances.

    Well, not quite, and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink too
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,501
    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    This is actually targeted at the unearned wealth of the boomer generation. So I'd have thought you would approve.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
    It's simply not going to raise enough money and will send wealthy people fleeing overseas. The non-dom changes have already caused a huge hole in the public finances, hitting long term investment two tax rises is going to cause an even bigger loss for the government.

    For every billion pounds in tax they raise they are going to take a billion out of the economy, if not more given that they will have to target the productive part meaning money that would otherwise be better used and result in a pretty good 1.5x economic multiplier now goes to the state which consumes. I wouldn't be surprised for every £1bn the government intends to raise by the maths it will only get around £0.5-0.6bn in additional revenue due to slower growth.

    Cutting spending is the only answer, it isn't beyond the wit of man to cut 2.5% out of the government budget.
    5% should be a dawdle and 10% possible
    Agree Malc, but these cretins couldn't even get £4bn of welfare cuts through.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,818
    Eabhal said:

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    To be brutal about it, it's also 18 years of public spending on someone who then dies horribly and expensively without contributing any tax. There's a fiscal and economic case too. "Serious injury" can cover lifelong disability and trauma.

    We were all shipped off to a cinema to watch videos of paraplegics and people burning to death when we were 16 - a rare bit of early intervention from the council. Still didn't stop a classmate wrapping a Clio round a tree.
    Preventative action does sometimes backfire. One young girl known to me told me about the lifelike 'baby' she & her friends took home from school to look after for a weekend. It's supposed to show them how demanding a baby is and put them off getting pregnant.

    Trouble was, she loved the whole experience.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,080
    On the subject of the country going to the dogs...

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/catcallers-undercover-female-officers-crackdown-5Hjd8Zq_2/

    Running from catcallers! LBC joins undercover female police officers in crackdown on people harassing women joggers
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,053

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    There is an argument for preventing young men from driving until they are age 25 and the risk assessing part of their brain is fully developed. Young women are more mature at 16 than young men at 24 IMHO.
    And it's a silly argument, if you ask me.

    You'd put a major obstacle in the mobility of young people in getting a job and living active social lives. Cars get safer all the time, and more automated. Those figures show the casualties from a collision involving at least one younger car driver decreased from 12,257 to 4,959, a fall of 60% since 2004.

    I don't favour any change.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,121
    MaxPB said:

    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    This is actually targeted at the unearned wealth of the boomer generation. So I'd have thought you would approve.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
    It's simply not going to raise enough money and will send wealthy people fleeing overseas. The non-dom changes have already caused a huge hole in the public finances, hitting long term investment two tax rises is going to cause an even bigger loss for the government.

    For every billion pounds in tax they raise they are going to take a billion out of the economy, if not more given that they will have to target the productive part meaning money that would otherwise be better used and result in a pretty good 1.5x economic multiplier now goes to the state which consumes. I wouldn't be surprised for every £1bn the government intends to raise by the maths it will only get around £0.5-0.6bn in additional revenue due to slower growth.

    Cutting spending is the only answer, it isn't beyond the wit of man to cut 2.5% out of the government budget.
    This stands at about £1.3 tn at the moment. 2.5% is about £32 billion. That's a cut of £1000 pa in expenditure for 32 million people, or £10,000 for 3.2 million people.

    Even when you have identified these cuts (answers on a postcard to 11 Downing Street) you have only cut about a third of our annual debt interest payments, or about a fifth of the additional amount we are borrowing each year for our grandchildren to pay back.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225

    Taz said:

    Interesting the framing of the reporting of the chancellors dilemma and the headlines, "Reeves must raise tax"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn85vyd1epzo

    That is not what is being said, she also can cut spending too.

    Especially the burgeoning welfare bill although that will be hard politically especially with charities and NGO's complaining the current levels of UC are not enough and the demands to life the 2 child cap.

    Then you have to say what you are going to cut.

    To save a billion pounds, you need twenty pounds a week from a million households. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it does mean identifying those people as individuals, not as part of a multiplication.

    Pretty much any spending cuts from here have to be ones that Osborne, Hammond, Sunak and Hunt weren't prepared to make.

    (And yes, the same thing applies to tax rises.)
    If that’s what needs to be done then so be it. Nothing Max suggested should be seen as controversial.

    However it won’t happen.

    The welfare ‘cuts’ proposed weren’t even numeric cuts it was just slowing the rate of growth.

    We live in a society where people want to take from the state and expect others to pay. Hence the crap about wealth taxes which just won’t work although I saw something in the press about them considering a ‘windfall levy’ on banks.

    Still we can carry on as we are. Not taking the decisions we need to take and then face the consequences. We need to get more people into work but job openings are falling, not helped by Reeves, consistently and have been prior to the election too. We will simply see measures to reduce future spending commitments. Extending pension age, freezing personal allowances etc etc. The core issues won’t be tackled.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    eek said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    So that’s fixed £2bn at most from the deficit where is the other £38bn coming from
    £2bn, if they get it. Usually this sort of tax simply encourages changes in behaviour.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,093
    Thanks for the conversation on the previous thread - very interesting. I have a couple of points to come back to that I have not answered.

    The thing that has surprised me about these proposals is that so far they seem in general to have broad brush support. Even when the Telegraph tried to make a culture war, they were being thoroughly beaten up by their own readers in the comments. eg:

    DT you've had all day to correct the impression that we oldies will be subjected to full driving tests every 3 years. You know it's only eye tests. I can only conclude that you are either guilty of clickbait or the article was written by some young oik who hates pensioners and wants to start a campaign against them.

    As a young man of 81, I agree. What is so onerous about the idea that compelling people of an age when eyesight deteriorates to protect themselves and the rest of road user from accidents?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/10/labour-told-make-driving-test-pass-rates-gender-equal/
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,266
    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the young drivers with passengers thing, from my telematics auto insurance company, I can tell you that if you have three or four eighteen year olds in a car, it's about 10x more dangerous than one eighteen year old on their own.

    I would be supportive of a six or twelve month "transition" period (as we have in California) where you can drive yourself, and gain experience, before adding the massive distractions of having a bunch of friends in there with you.

    It's a no-brainer.

    Safe driving is habitual. Younger, inexperienced drivers need to concentrate more than older drivers and nothing could be more inimical to concentration than a car full of teenagers.
    It's also a complex skill, that requires concentration and benefits from continual practice.

    Habits can also be bad - so we train ourselves to not be as good as we could be. One good example is the "open the door with your inside hand as that means you turn around and are more likely to look backwards and notice the car that is about to take your door off, or the cyclist you are about to put in hospital. Equally we design mobility lanes with parking positioned so close that dangerous door opening is enforced.

    An example from me is that one of my bad habits is not doing the blind spot check when I need to change lanes rapidly. Every several years I nearly change lanes into a vehicle I have not noticed. So for the current car I specced a blind spot sensor which lights up orange on the wing mirror.

    Another bad habit is that I sometimes do not indicate early enough for lane changes and off ramps. So I try and implement a discipline of at least 3 or 4 ticks before changing my direction.
    Now that many cars have mirrors that pull in at a touch of the button and drivers pulling in their windows to avoid them being hit by other drivers and cyclists being too close, fewer drivers will look in their side mirrors before opening their door.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,121
    AnneJGP said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    To be brutal about it, it's also 18 years of public spending on someone who then dies horribly and expensively without contributing any tax. There's a fiscal and economic case too. "Serious injury" can cover lifelong disability and trauma.

    We were all shipped off to a cinema to watch videos of paraplegics and people burning to death when we were 16 - a rare bit of early intervention from the council. Still didn't stop a classmate wrapping a Clio round a tree.
    Preventative action does sometimes backfire. One young girl known to me told me about the lifelike 'baby' she & her friends took home from school to look after for a weekend. It's supposed to show them how demanding a baby is and put them off getting pregnant.

    Trouble was, she loved the whole experience.
    Good. There is hope for us yet. It is entirely normal that they should find the experience demanding and wonderful.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,574

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    There is an argument for preventing young men from driving until they are age 25 and the risk assessing part of their brain is fully developed. Young women are more mature at 16 than young men at 24 IMHO.
    And it's a silly argument, if you ask me.

    You'd put a major obstacle in the mobility of young people in getting a job and living active social lives. Cars get safer all the time, and more automated. Those figures show the casualties from a collision involving at least one younger car driver decreased from 12,257 to 4,959, a fall of 60% since 2004.

    I don't favour any change.
    Isn't that at least in part to the numbers?

    There are fewer youngsters as a percentage of the population, fewer youngsters have driving licences, fewer youngsters drink alcohol, and fewer go out at night, therefore fewer fatal accidents involving youngsters.

    Better car safety obviously helps too.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,053
    MaxPB said:

    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    This is actually targeted at the unearned wealth of the boomer generation. So I'd have thought you would approve.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
    It's simply not going to raise enough money and will send wealthy people fleeing overseas. The non-dom changes have already caused a huge hole in the public finances, hitting long term investment two tax rises is going to cause an even bigger loss for the government.

    For every billion pounds in tax they raise they are going to take a billion out of the economy, if not more given that they will have to target the productive part meaning money that would otherwise be better used and result in a pretty good 1.5x economic multiplier now goes to the state which consumes. I wouldn't be surprised for every £1bn the government intends to raise by the maths it will only get around £0.5-0.6bn in additional revenue due to slower growth.

    Cutting spending is the only answer, it isn't beyond the wit of man to cut 2.5% out of the government budget.
    This government can't cut spending, and won't.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225
    MattW said:

    Thanks for the conversation on the previous thread - very interesting. I have a couple of points to come back to that I have not answered.

    The thing that has surprised me about these proposals is that so far they seem in general to have broad brush support. Even when the Telegraph tried to make a culture war, they were being thoroughly beaten up by their own readers in the comments. eg:

    DT you've had all day to correct the impression that we oldies will be subjected to full driving tests every 3 years. You know it's only eye tests. I can only conclude that you are either guilty of clickbait or the article was written by some young oik who hates pensioners and wants to start a campaign against them.

    As a young man of 81, I agree. What is so onerous about the idea that compelling people of an age when eyesight deteriorates to protect themselves and the rest of road user from accidents?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/10/labour-told-make-driving-test-pass-rates-gender-equal/

    Having seen both my parents driving in their eighties, and both were good drivers when younger, I think this proposal is great and I’d happily have my license revoked if my driving was a risk to others
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,118
    eek said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    So that’s fixed £2bn at most from the deficit where is the other £38bn coming from
    Honestly, how much longer do we have to put up with Reeves, who is quite clearly useless
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,053
    Foxy said:

    FPT:

    Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.

    1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.

    2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.

    3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.

    Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.

    The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.

    We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
    These are basic safety ideas to stop people getting killed. As you know two 18 year old lads from my sons class got killed in June as passengers in cars driven by new drivers. Both the young and the old need some controls placed on their driving where they are a danger to others.

    It is not a question of legislating to emove 'All' risk, simply to deal with the bleeding obvious risks posed by those who are unfit to drive, either due to age or being under the influence.

    I didn't know that and I'm sorry to hear that.

    The trouble is if you legislate for a tragedy that hits and restricts the options for all 18 year old drivers, and there are over 150k of them.

    In general, one should always be cautious in responding to a tragedy with knee-jerk legislation. And I don't agree with it.

    Instead I'd put the risk and judgement onto the 18 year olds themselves. Most of whom will get it absolutely right.
    Except it is not just them who are at risk of being killed or injured.

    Overall, in 2023, around a fifth of all killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties from collisions involving cars were in collisions which involved a young car driver.

    Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are 4 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.

    In 2023 there were 4959 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a young driver.
    In 2023 there were 1860 people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving a drunk driver.

    So more than twice as many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving young drivers as were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving drunk drivers.
    There is an argument for preventing young men from driving until they are age 25 and the risk assessing part of their brain is fully developed. Young women are more mature at 16 than young men at 24 IMHO.
    And it's a silly argument, if you ask me.

    You'd put a major obstacle in the mobility of young people in getting a job and living active social lives. Cars get safer all the time, and more automated. Those figures show the casualties from a collision involving at least one younger car driver decreased from 12,257 to 4,959, a fall of 60% since 2004.

    I don't favour any change.
    Isn't that at least in part to the numbers?

    There are fewer youngsters as a percentage of the population, fewer youngsters have driving licences, fewer youngsters drink alcohol, and fewer go out at night, therefore fewer fatal accidents involving youngsters.

    Better car safety obviously helps too.
    It could be, without analysis that's just speculation though.

    Fewer youngsters may well be part of it but I'd be surprised if demographic drove anything close to a 60% drop over the 2004-2023 period.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,225

    MaxPB said:

    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    This is actually targeted at the unearned wealth of the boomer generation. So I'd have thought you would approve.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
    It's simply not going to raise enough money and will send wealthy people fleeing overseas. The non-dom changes have already caused a huge hole in the public finances, hitting long term investment two tax rises is going to cause an even bigger loss for the government.

    For every billion pounds in tax they raise they are going to take a billion out of the economy, if not more given that they will have to target the productive part meaning money that would otherwise be better used and result in a pretty good 1.5x economic multiplier now goes to the state which consumes. I wouldn't be surprised for every £1bn the government intends to raise by the maths it will only get around £0.5-0.6bn in additional revenue due to slower growth.

    Cutting spending is the only answer, it isn't beyond the wit of man to cut 2.5% out of the government budget.
    This government can't cut spending, and won't.
    There is no political will to cut spending. The govt could cut spending if it was so motivated and the opposition have a role to play. Shamefully the Tories did not support the slowing of the benefits spend by 5 billion when they had the chance, simply to oppose for the sake of it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,986
    algarkirk said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    IHT was a fairly quiet subject until the recent changes on farms and family businesses, which will adversely affect those without time to replan their financial arrangements. This made it a noisy subject.

    The reason it was quiet is because it was avoidable. The rich, both old money and new money, can plan around it. Lincoln's Inn and countless solicitors and accountants do nicely out of it.

    A reform which truly sought to make it unavoidable would stir a hornet's nest. But this is because of the ludicrous rate applied. at the moment the choice is either pay 40% or avoid. It's a no brainer. An IHT/inter vivos gift tax at 5% or 10% and unavoidable would make far better sense.
    100% this: a sensible level of IHT, much more broadly applied would be by far the most sensible thing, and means we could dispense with the ridiculous number of exemptions we've created.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,798
    Reminder that the next 3 months will see acres of press coverage devoted to idle rumours, wishful thinking and personal hobbyhorses dressed up as budget speculation. 99% can be conveniently ignored.

    The kite flying will emerge in a more meaningful way in October.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,574
    In terms of testing older drivers, I think that the real problem is reaction time rather than vision. In some US States the vision rules are so lax that people who are registered partially sighted can drive, but there is little evidence those states have more accidents. Reaction time is more critical, and requires not just vision, but also acting on hazards, particularly so where there is cognitive impairment developing, though physical frailty too.

    Vision is at least fairly easy to test, with objective measures, but reaction time etc is more difficult. At the very least it requires a good simulator, but more realistically an on the road test, and we have very limited capacity for those.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,501
    edited August 12
    algarkirk said:

    MaxPB said:

    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit

    Exclusive: Chancellor also looking at tweaks to capital gains tax to try to bridge £40bn-plus spending gap before budget


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit

    This is going to be a disaster. They just need to get real and cut spending. Freeze public sector salaries, cut the triple lock and cut public sector pensions. Private sector salary growth is stalling already and the number of vacancies is falling drastically so they can't even cry about a recruitment problem like they moaned about when the last government did it.

    Taxes can't go up now without taking money out of the productive base of the economy. There's no more left to give.
    This is actually targeted at the unearned wealth of the boomer generation. So I'd have thought you would approve.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/12/treasury-targeting-inheritance-tax-reforms-to-help-plug-uk-deficit
    It's simply not going to raise enough money and will send wealthy people fleeing overseas. The non-dom changes have already caused a huge hole in the public finances, hitting long term investment two tax rises is going to cause an even bigger loss for the government.

    For every billion pounds in tax they raise they are going to take a billion out of the economy, if not more given that they will have to target the productive part meaning money that would otherwise be better used and result in a pretty good 1.5x economic multiplier now goes to the state which consumes. I wouldn't be surprised for every £1bn the government intends to raise by the maths it will only get around £0.5-0.6bn in additional revenue due to slower growth.

    Cutting spending is the only answer, it isn't beyond the wit of man to cut 2.5% out of the government budget.
    This stands at about £1.3 tn at the moment. 2.5% is about £32 billion. That's a cut of £1000 pa in expenditure for 32 million people, or £10,000 for 3.2 million people.

    Even when you have identified these cuts (answers on a postcard to 11 Downing Street) you have only cut about a third of our annual debt interest payments, or about a fifth of the additional amount we are borrowing each year for our grandchildren to pay back.
    Or cutting about 600k jobs from state employment. I'd do over a million job cuts out of middle management and admin within two years.

    You're also ignoring the fact that if the government signalled it was prepared to make substantial spending cuts with job losses in the public sector the debt interest bill would fall from two factors - lower inflation and a lower risk premium. A £32bn cut in spending will be coupled with a £10-15bn cut in debt interest yielding between about £40bn in savings even after unemployment benefits are factored in, maybe £20bn in years one and two due to the cost of paying people off.

    I'd also cut benefits substantially, cut public sector pensions by at least 25% plus introduce a defined benefit tax on that specific class of income taxed at source just like PAYE and legislate to shift the index to CPI, kill the triple lock and for another £15-20bn in annual savings.

    I'd also cancel the 2m+ low income and dependent visas that arrived from 2020 and I'd make all of the "skilled" workers from before the income increase reapply for their visas and invalidate those who don't meet the new threshold within 6 months. Companies either pay more for the foreign workers or they find a British person who is capable of doing the £27-38k per year job they can't have migrants for.

    I'd also cut the whole asylum budget, set up camps with very high fences, tents and no right to leave the camp until they have had their claim processed, no rights to any benefits even for people who receive status for a minimum period of 10 years and no citizenship for a minimum period of 20 years. People who are declined have no right of appeal and are removed either to their home country or to a third country like Rwanda, they get to choose which they'd prefer. If that breaks their human rights then so be it, they can choose some other country to go and leech from.

    The state is simply too generous, the UK is a middle income country with expenditure on welfare of a rich country. Welfare needs to be cut.
Sign In or Register to comment.