I feel it necessary to remind any of you who might visit the US that, in some parts of the US, "regular" sex can result in an irregular marriage:
In the United States, common-law marriage, also known as sui juris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact, is a form of irregular marriage that survives only in seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia along with some provisions of military law; plus two other states that recognize domestic common law marriage after the fact for limited purposes.
I feel it necessary to remind any of you who might visit the US that, in some parts of the US, "regular" sex can result in an irregular marriage:
In the United States, common-law marriage, also known as sui juris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact, is a form of irregular marriage that survives only in seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia along with some provisions of military law; plus two other states that recognize domestic common law marriage after the fact for limited purposes.
Given in the Bible belt sex should only take place in heterosexual marriage and 5 of those 7 states voted for Trump and the GOP not a complete surprise
Much as I dislike Sir Keir, I find Westminster gossip undermining, or potentially bringing down, a PM a bit silly.
That said, if he is replaced, I think there should be a GE. I thought this when the Tories kept swapping PM’s as well. It may be true that we elect governments, not Presidents, but changing leader is a pretty sure sign that what we voted for hasn’t worked. If the party in charge are admitting that, the country should choose the replacement
The main reason that MPs replace a PM is because they want to try to save their seats at the next election.
If you insist that replacing the PM is followed by an election then MPs will not replace a failing PM, because they will not want to lose their seats a few years earlier than necessary.
We should not make a change that would lead to failing PMs being kept in office to fail for longer. It would reduce the quality of the governance of the country even further.
Much as I dislike Sir Keir, I find Westminster gossip undermining, or potentially bringing down, a PM a bit silly.
That said, if he is replaced, I think there should be a GE. I thought this when the Tories kept swapping PM’s as well. It may be true that we elect governments, not Presidents, but changing leader is a pretty sure sign that what we voted for hasn’t worked. If the party in charge are admitting that, the country should choose the replacement
No, we are a parliamentary system not a presidential system. The PM is after all only the King's chief minister, he is elected by most MPs not the voters directly. Though if Labour members replaced Starmer with Ed Miliband rather than Streeting that would be tempting, given Starmer won a landslide majority last year and Red Ed was rejected by the voters in 2015 in favour of Cameron.
Of course not even replacing a President means a snap election anyway, eg President Nixon was replaced by VP Ford in 1973 with no election when Nixon resigned rather than risk impeachment and being ousted. The new President Ford hadn't even been Nixon's running mate when he was re elected in 1972, it was Agnew. That was also how Kevin Spacey's VP Frank Underwood character became President without ever winning an election first in the US House of Cards
In text messages from 2017, Jeffrey Epstein seemingly represented himself as positioned to pass information from the Trump White House to Bill Gates through an intermediary.
Good afternoon @Barnsian and @FrancisUrquhart. Thank you for your recommendations regarding AI experts. @Barnesian nominated Geoffrey Hinton and @FrancisUrquhart nominated Andrej Karpathy. I have no idea which one is better but I look forward to listening to their lectures, links to which are below.
I'm late to the game, but https://www.youtube.com/@code4AI is worth a go. Afaik a theoretical physicist from Austria who does run-throughs of new papers, but also does his own logic/maths tests of models. Sometimes very deep maths stuff - but often intelligible to even dummies like me.
Megyn Kelly: "I know somebody very close to this case…Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile…He was into the barely legal type, like he liked 15 year old girls…He wasn't into like 8 year olds…There's a difference between a 15 year old and a 5 year old."
Not really. The word peadophile is often wrongly used. They're not the same thing. Even the thing that has brought Prince Andrew down was about a 17yr old, totally legal. Of course if you want to raise the age of consent, then advocate for doing so.
Its only legal for regular sex between consenting individuals.
If money is involved, then 18 is the age.
Illegal.
Even if he didn’t know money was involved? I can quite believe Andrew M-W believing he was irresistible to her
If Epstein was involved money will be there somewhere - even if it was just an investment in his "funds"
I believe Guiffre was paid $15k a time.
But my question was if Andrew M-W didn’t *know* that or suspect it, can he be held guilty?
Wouldn't that be a matter for a jury to decide?
In the specific case yes, but @BartholomewRoberts was definitive in his assertion
Much as I dislike Sir Keir, I find Westminster gossip undermining, or potentially bringing down, a PM a bit silly.
That said, if he is replaced, I think there should be a GE. I thought this when the Tories kept swapping PM’s as well. It may be true that we elect governments, not Presidents, but changing leader is a pretty sure sign that what we voted for hasn’t worked. If the party in charge are admitting that, the country should choose the replacement
The main reason that MPs replace a PM is because they want to try to save their seats at the next election.
If you insist that replacing the PM is followed by an election then MPs will not replace a failing PM, because they will not want to lose their seats a few years earlier than necessary.
We should not make a change that would lead to failing PMs being kept in office to fail for longer. It would reduce the quality of the governance of the country even further.
It’s a bit like divorce; if divorcing wasn’t an option people might work harder to save their marriage. If replacing a PM meant a GE, governments might find common cause rather than undermine their leader
Megyn Kelly: "I know somebody very close to this case…Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile…He was into the barely legal type, like he liked 15 year old girls…He wasn't into like 8 year olds…There's a difference between a 15 year old and a 5 year old."
Not really. The word peadophile is often wrongly used. They're not the same thing. Even the thing that has brought Prince Andrew down was about a 17yr old, totally legal. Of course if you want to raise the age of consent, then advocate for doing so.
Its only legal for regular sex between consenting individuals.
If money is involved, then 18 is the age.
Illegal.
Even if he didn’t know money was involved? I can quite believe Andrew M-W believing he was irresistible to her
If Epstein was involved money will be there somewhere - even if it was just an investment in his "funds"
I believe Guiffre was paid $15k a time.
But my question was if Andrew M-W didn’t *know* that or suspect it, can he be held guilty?
Wouldn't that require him to be massively stupid and entitled and driven by the urgings of his willy...
Bit of a pattern emerging Just as egregious as the Panorama one, and earlier, and the misleading splicing objected to at the time on air, but Kirsty Wark just moved on ..
Much as I dislike Sir Keir, I find Westminster gossip undermining, or potentially bringing down, a PM a bit silly.
That said, if he is replaced, I think there should be a GE. I thought this when the Tories kept swapping PM’s as well. It may be true that we elect governments, not Presidents, but changing leader is a pretty sure sign that what we voted for hasn’t worked. If the party in charge are admitting that, the country should choose the replacement
The main reason that MPs replace a PM is because they want to try to save their seats at the next election.
If you insist that replacing the PM is followed by an election then MPs will not replace a failing PM, because they will not want to lose their seats a few years earlier than necessary.
We should not make a change that would lead to failing PMs being kept in office to fail for longer. It would reduce the quality of the governance of the country even further.
On the other hand, does the whole Sword of Damocles thing make it too hard for Prime Ministers to succeed? Perhaps putting a discreet cost on changing PM would help Parliamentarians to love the one they are with and be less short-term skittish.
Replacing Thatcher by Major improved things (though it injected a poison into the Conservative brain that persists). But most mid-term PM swaps since probably are downgrades.
Much as I dislike Sir Keir, I find Westminster gossip undermining, or potentially bringing down, a PM a bit silly.
That said, if he is replaced, I think there should be a GE. I thought this when the Tories kept swapping PM’s as well. It may be true that we elect governments, not Presidents, but changing leader is a pretty sure sign that what we voted for hasn’t worked. If the party in charge are admitting that, the country should choose the replacement
The problem that creates a bias to the status quo.
If the leader is failing… the government is unpopular… will lose an election if they change leader… so persist with the failing leader
Michael Dirda likes this new translation of an old book:
I had thought that reading Robin Waterfield’s new translation of Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War” might offer some understanding, even some consolation, in these times of domestic political upheaval and brutal conflict around the world. I was both right and wrong. While this long book certainly teaches a kind of bitter wisdom, it provides little or no comfort. Two and a half millennia may have passed, but this account of the 5th-century B.C. power struggle between Athens and Sparta feels all too modern: . . .
Never explain, never apologise. The BBC should simply have ignored Trump's threat or simply have sent a "thank you for your letter the contents of which have been noted" letter in return.
I hope there's a hidden message, where the first letter of each sentence spells something rude.
Much as I dislike Sir Keir, I find Westminster gossip undermining, or potentially bringing down, a PM a bit silly.
That said, if he is replaced, I think there should be a GE. I thought this when the Tories kept swapping PM’s as well. It may be true that we elect governments, not Presidents, but changing leader is a pretty sure sign that what we voted for hasn’t worked. If the party in charge are admitting that, the country should choose the replacement
The main reason that MPs replace a PM is because they want to try to save their seats at the next election.
If you insist that replacing the PM is followed by an election then MPs will not replace a failing PM, because they will not want to lose their seats a few years earlier than necessary.
We should not make a change that would lead to failing PMs being kept in office to fail for longer. It would reduce the quality of the governance of the country even further.
It’s a bit like divorce; if divorcing wasn’t an option people might work harder to save their marriage. If replacing a PM meant a GE, governments might find common cause rather than undermine their leader
The way I think about the merits of democracy is that it's not a system that's better at coming up with the right answers, but it is a system that's better at identifying the wrong answers and trying something different.
The sooner you are able to correct mistakes the better.
And, well, I worked damn hard to fix the relationship with my first wife. Sometimes you make mistakes. Eleven years and no regrets with my second wife. I don't think Labour will be so fortunate in their choice of a second PM, but I don't see much sign of Starmer fixing the defects that have caused his PMship to fail.
The Walter Mitty Hunters Facebook page who the telegraph have used is at the same time hilarious as depressing. There are some remarkable chancers they expose and they are big on a fake veterans charity scam who are all over the streets of London collecting donations.
There are apparently two types, “Walts” who were never in the military and “bloaters” who were in regiments such as REME or the reserves for a month who then try and convince people they were in the SAS.
Much as I dislike Sir Keir, I find Westminster gossip undermining, or potentially bringing down, a PM a bit silly.
That said, if he is replaced, I think there should be a GE. I thought this when the Tories kept swapping PM’s as well. It may be true that we elect governments, not Presidents, but changing leader is a pretty sure sign that what we voted for hasn’t worked. If the party in charge are admitting that, the country should choose the replacement
The main reason that MPs replace a PM is because they want to try to save their seats at the next election.
If you insist that replacing the PM is followed by an election then MPs will not replace a failing PM, because they will not want to lose their seats a few years earlier than necessary.
We should not make a change that would lead to failing PMs being kept in office to fail for longer. It would reduce the quality of the governance of the country even further.
On the other hand, does the whole Sword of Damocles thing make it too hard for Prime Ministers to succeed? Perhaps putting a discreet cost on changing PM would help Parliamentarians to love the one they are with and be less short-term skittish.
Replacing Thatcher by Major improved things (though it injected a poison into the Conservative brain that persists). But most mid-term PM swaps since probably are downgrades.
I think the problem is that the role of PM has simply grown to be too big. It's a difficult job to succeed in.
If the Cabinet was running the country (and not all jostling to take over as PM) then I think you'd do a lot better.
I also think that we have this weird situation where the PM alone determines policy across the whole breadth of government, and so you have to change PM to change the political direction of a government, but when there's discussion of replacing a failing PM the focus is purely on the personal qualities of possible candidates - are they good in the media, can they talk in coherent sentences, etc, and not the policy changes they might implement.
Anyone have any idea what policy changes Streeting might bring if he became PM?
In text messages from 2017, Jeffrey Epstein seemingly represented himself as positioned to pass information from the Trump White House to Bill Gates through an intermediary.
Nick Fuentes: " [Trump] is a John the Baptist, he's the prefigurement of what will come..."
Good grief they’re all mad . Amazing all these cult members seeing the stain on humanity as sent by God of course ignoring that Trumps broken most of the Ten Commandments .
I also think that we have this weird situation where the PM alone determines policy across the whole breadth of government, and so you have to change PM to change the political direction of a government, but when there's discussion of replacing a failing PM the focus is purely on the personal qualities of possible candidates - are they good in the media, can they talk in coherent sentences, etc, and not the policy changes they might implement.
Anyone have any idea what policy changes Streeting might bring if he became PM?
This isn't conducive to making a positive change.
This ties into a longstanding thought of mine that the public have no real way of knowing who will make a good minister anyway, since the only skills we can observe don't automatically mean they would do a good job. Likewise somewhat might be a good minister but not end up a good Prime Minister.
I don't really see any obvious solution. Experience doesn't necessary means someone will be more effective, nor their media or political skills. So it just ends up a crapshoot, even if there are obvious red flags from some people if they are, say, especially economically illiterate or something.
Nick Fuentes: " [Trump] is a John the Baptist, he's the prefigurement of what will come..."
Good grief they’re all mad . Amazing all these cult members seeing the stain on humanity as sent by God of course ignoring that Trumps broken most of the Ten Commandments .
You are focusing on details. What's a few broken commandments here and there when we are dealing with the second son of god etc.
Much as I dislike Sir Keir, I find Westminster gossip undermining, or potentially bringing down, a PM a bit silly.
That said, if he is replaced, I think there should be a GE. I thought this when the Tories kept swapping PM’s as well. It may be true that we elect governments, not Presidents, but changing leader is a pretty sure sign that what we voted for hasn’t worked. If the party in charge are admitting that, the country should choose the replacement
The problem that creates a bias to the status quo.
If the leader is failing… the government is unpopular… will lose an election if they change leader… so persist with the failing leader
Changing the leader can work, we've seen it happen. The Tories took it too far with the rapid changes and destroyed any appearance of competence, making it probably worse than if they'd done nothing (not that Sunak made the most of the opportunity anyway).
Nick Fuentes: " [Trump] is a John the Baptist, he's the prefigurement of what will come..."
Good grief they’re all mad . Amazing all these cult members seeing the stain on humanity as sent by God of course ignoring that Trumps broken most of the Ten Commandments .
I also think that we have this weird situation where the PM alone determines policy across the whole breadth of government, and so you have to change PM to change the political direction of a government, but when there's discussion of replacing a failing PM the focus is purely on the personal qualities of possible candidates - are they good in the media, can they talk in coherent sentences, etc, and not the policy changes they might implement.
Anyone have any idea what policy changes Streeting might bring if he became PM?
This isn't conducive to making a positive change.
This ties into a longstanding thought of mine that the public have no real way of knowing who will make a good minister anyway, since the only skills we can observe don't automatically mean they would do a good job. Likewise somewhat might be a good minister but not end up a good Prime Minister.
I don't really see any obvious solution. Experience doesn't necessary means someone will be more effective, nor their media or political skills. So it just ends up a crapshoot, even if there are obvious red flags from some people if they are, say, especially economically illiterate or something.
Cyril Northcote Parkinson (of Parkinson's Law fame) said that the job advert for Prime Minister should stipulate that the candidate should be prepared to be executed painlessly upon retirement and if their popularity falls below a certain level. Then only someone who was prepared to die for their country and is very sure that they would be do a good job would dare apply.
Nick Fuentes: " [Trump] is a John the Baptist, he's the prefigurement of what will come..."
Good grief they’re all mad . Amazing all these cult members seeing the stain on humanity as sent by God of course ignoring that Trumps broken most of the Ten Commandments .
Nick Fuentes: " [Trump] is a John the Baptist, he's the prefigurement of what will come..."
Evening, P.B.
Thr idea of J.D. Vance being Jesus is, to put it fairly mildly, challenging. His master, Peter Thiel, has also shown signs of Christian fundamentalism, recently.
A concerning clip from James McMurdock MP of doorcam footage showing a delivery driver opening his front door and starting to walk in before he was confronted.
Dan Neidle pointing out what many of us having been pointing out for years,
Here's a chart of the marginal tax rate for someone with two kids. They pay 53% tax on every £ they earn between £60k and £80k. 62% on every £ they earn between £100k and £125k. 9% more if they've a student loan
You can be £20k worse off at £100,001 than you were at £100,000 People know this. They make additional pension contributions, turn away work, refuse promotions, work 4 days a week...
A concerning clip from James McMurdock MP of doorcam footage showing a delivery driver opening his front door and starting to walk in before he was confronted.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
All the kite flying about exit taxes. They are out too.
Is she going to fill the blackhole with for loads and loads of stealth taxes around the edges instead, that will probably add even more cliff edges, cost of doing business, etc?
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
You can spin it how you like but those figures are dire. Less than half those polled who were Labour voters in 2024 reckon Starmer should stay in post is crappy.
More popular than his party doesnt make him an asset.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
Seriously? Wow. Running out of options what to lift now. Surely they won't raise VAT or NI
No chance of increasing VAT. Maybe another 1% on employERs NI worth around £8bn. Plus the virtually certain extension of income tax threshold freeze to 2030 worth around £12bn.
A concerning clip from James McMurdock MP of doorcam footage showing a delivery driver opening his front door and starting to walk in before he was confronted.
Trespass is a civil matter unless criminal damage or burglary or violence takes place
Our front door is always open. The locked door is the next one. Means delivery drivers can leave parcels in the porch and my dad can have a pee without needing his key.*
*In the downstairs toilet obviously, you weirdos. He does just go in the corner…
Given VAT in its current form is routinely rolled out as being massively regressive, no way Reeves gets a VAT rise through the PLP.
It really need across the board reform of what is and isn't VAT-able, but as Osborne found out you quickly run into trouble even trying to tinker with it.
Whoever released the information about income tax made another mistake imo. It would have been interesting and surprising if it had first become apparent during the HoC speech itself.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Wonder if there is any more kite flying to come in the next 10 days? Maybe a return for the window tax, last seen in the 1850s, or the hearth tax abolished circa 1690s. Given that most homes are now built without hearths, maybe the Chancellor will go for a toilet tax instead
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
Is she going to fill the blackhole with for loads and loads of stealth taxes around the edges instead, that will probably add even more cliff edges, cost of doing business, etc?
Sounds like you have the inside scoop on government in general there.
All those sent out to roll the pitch for breaking of the manifesto and going with higher IC rates are going to be dead happy with Reeves U-turn....
You wonder what tax rises Labour MPs are being briefed on right now. A lot of them seemed surprised by some of the measures late on before last years budget
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
What's the point anymore?
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
Seriously? Wow. Running out of options what to lift now. Surely they won't raise VAT or NI
No chance of increasing VAT. Maybe another 1% on employERs NI worth around £8bn. Plus the virtually certain extension of income tax threshold freeze to 2030 worth around £12bn.
Fair point, but they need to plug the gap now. She could drop the IT threshold, would be ridiculously unpopular though. Another option is lower the starting rate on some income tax bands but keep the tax percentages the same
Russia’s oil giants on the brink: shares plummet nearly 20% amid sanctions
Sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft have triggered a crisis in Russia’s oil industry. Bloomberg reports that almost one billion barrels of oil are currently stuck in tankers worldwide with no buyers, most of it Russian.
Investors also fear that sanctions will prevent the companies from offloading foreign assets without losses.
Globally, countries are rejecting Russian oil products. Brazil sharply reduced imports of Russian diesel, while Indian and Chinese oil companies have significantly cut or almost completely stopped buying Russian crude.
In Finland, Lukoil’s Teboil fuel network announced it will cease operations due to the sanctions.
Recently, Lukoil declared force majeure at one of the world’s largest oil fields in Iraq after Baghdad halted payments over sanctions.
The most significant line is buried in the middle: Chinese oil companies have significantly cut or almost completely stopped buying Russian crude.
China, for all its huffing and puffing, needs trade with the West more than it needs warm and fuzzies with Russia. China is, to quote Yes, Prime Minister, giving Russia every support short of help.
A concerning clip from James McMurdock MP of doorcam footage showing a delivery driver opening his front door and starting to walk in before he was confronted.
Trespass is a civil matter unless criminal damage or burglary or violence takes place
Our front door is always open. The locked door is the next one. Means delivery drivers can leave parcels in the porch and my dad can have a pee without needing his key.*
*In the downstairs toilet obviously, you weirdos. He does just go in the corner…
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
I'm very surprised.
I thought the income tax increase / employee NI decrease wheeze was a good idea in the circumstances.
Actually, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. The last good idea they had (scrapping winter fuel allowance) was a political disaster and a failure.
Some more distorting tax rises to come I'm sure.
Yep. back to tinkering and thresholds and minor adjustments of some obscure tax no one has heard of with a total uptake in the end of a claimed £20b but every bond marketeer will know that's a lie and will never happen.
I'm sorry but I am close to Leon levels of despair with the Starmer-Reeves double act.
Russia’s oil giants on the brink: shares plummet nearly 20% amid sanctions
Sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft have triggered a crisis in Russia’s oil industry. Bloomberg reports that almost one billion barrels of oil are currently stuck in tankers worldwide with no buyers, most of it Russian.
Investors also fear that sanctions will prevent the companies from offloading foreign assets without losses.
Globally, countries are rejecting Russian oil products. Brazil sharply reduced imports of Russian diesel, while Indian and Chinese oil companies have significantly cut or almost completely stopped buying Russian crude.
In Finland, Lukoil’s Teboil fuel network announced it will cease operations due to the sanctions.
Recently, Lukoil declared force majeure at one of the world’s largest oil fields in Iraq after Baghdad halted payments over sanctions.
The most significant line is buried in the middle: Chinese oil companies have significantly cut or almost completely stopped buying Russian crude.
China, for all its huffing and puffing, needs trade with the West more than it needs warm and fuzzies with Russia. China is, to quote Yes, Prime Minister, giving Russia every support short of help.
Either that or China is about to get a hell of a deal in exchange for consenting to buy some I guess.
"The chief executives of Scotland's four smallest councils are in line to get pay rises of as much as 24% after a review of local authority heads' pay.
The bosses of the councils in Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and Clackmannanshire will see their salary increase by more than £30,000 as a result of the review seen by BBC News.
The new pay framework agreed by council umbrella body Cosla and the group that represents bosses, Alace, has set salaries of between £165,755 and £230,620 based on council size."
... hilarity ensues? It really is puzzling that a review by well paid admins into well paid admins salaries results in well paid admins being paid more. At 'arms length' and above board, of course.
A concerning clip from James McMurdock MP of doorcam footage showing a delivery driver opening his front door and starting to walk in before he was confronted.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
What's the point anymore?
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
Or maybe all the speculation, rumours and lobbying by special interests was all bollocks in the first place.
Zarah's on QT at the moment, sounding just as shrill as Ash Sarkar
Other than the money is there a reason Corbyn and the Gaza bros are not fans of hers?
Declan Stones @DeclanStones1 · 2h If this wasn't 'left wingers' and Muslim MPs people would rightly call this out for what it is full blown misogyny, every single time they exclude the only female MP in their group and they attack Sultana on everything (not a Zarah fan myself, but plain to see what is happening)
Bit of a pattern emerging Just as egregious as the Panorama one, and earlier, and the misleading splicing objected to at the time on air, but Kirsty Wark just moved on ..
Newsnight goes out live. What was she expected to do? Cut to the test card while someone re-edited the footage?
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
I'm very surprised.
I thought the income tax increase / employee NI decrease wheeze was a good idea in the circumstances.
Actually, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. The last good idea they had (scrapping winter fuel allowance) was a political disaster and a failure.
Some more distorting tax rises to come I'm sure.
Yep. back to tinkering and thresholds and minor adjustments of some obscure tax no one has heard of with a total uptake in the end of a claimed £20b but every bond marketeer will know that's a lie and will never happen.
I'm sorry but I am close to Leon levels of despair with the Starmer-Reeves double act.
In office but not in power.
The old William Burroughs quote from "No more Stalins" keeps coming to my mind.
We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision.
The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident; inept, frightened pilots with controls of vast machines they cannot understand, calling in experts telling them which buttons to push.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Sounds like a set of measures which won't raise what's required. More trouble next year.
And the more obscure, and the more punitive, the more subjective to behavioural change. Having totally trashed their manifesto commitments, now going back on that. The political damage had probably already been largely done.
Hard to see how you get such a large sum from back of the sofa scratching. To raise money on a mansion tax it’s going to be a very small mansion threshold to bring anything in. A two bedroom flat in London is now likely to be considered a mansion.
Zarah's on QT at the moment, sounding just as shrill as Ash Sarkar
Other than the money is there a reason Corbyn and the Gaza bros are not fans of hers?
Declan Stones @DeclanStones1 · 2h If this wasn't 'left wingers' and Muslim MPs people would rightly call this out for what it is full blown misogyny, every single time they exclude the only female MP in their group and they attack Sultana on everything (not a Zarah fan myself, but plain to see what is happening)
Comments
Given in the Bible belt sex should only take place in heterosexual marriage and 5 of those 7 states voted for Trump and the GOP not a complete surprise
‘Fake admiral’ takes centre stage at Remembrance event
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/13/fake-admiral-remembrance-sunday-event-north-wales/
If you insist that replacing the PM is followed by an election then MPs will not replace a failing PM, because they will not want to lose their seats a few years earlier than necessary.
We should not make a change that would lead to failing PMs being kept in office to fail for longer. It would reduce the quality of the governance of the country even further.
Of course not even replacing a President means a snap election anyway, eg President Nixon was replaced by VP Ford in 1973 with no election when Nixon resigned rather than risk impeachment and being ousted. The new President Ford hadn't even been Nixon's running mate when he was re elected in 1972, it was Agnew. That was also how Kevin Spacey's VP Frank Underwood character became President without ever winning an election first in the US House of Cards
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/c0l7ed36elwt
Just as egregious as the Panorama one, and earlier, and the misleading splicing objected to at the time on air, but Kirsty Wark just moved on ..
Replacing Thatcher by Major improved things (though it injected a poison into the Conservative brain that persists). But most mid-term PM swaps since probably are downgrades.
If the leader is failing… the government is unpopular… will lose an election if they change leader… so persist with the failing leader
The sooner you are able to correct mistakes the better.
And, well, I worked damn hard to fix the relationship with my first wife. Sometimes you make mistakes. Eleven years and no regrets with my second wife. I don't think Labour will be so fortunate in their choice of a second PM, but I don't see much sign of Starmer fixing the defects that have caused his PMship to fail.
An attempt to criminalise going to the homes of elected officials is unjustifiably broad"
https://thecritic.co.uk/in-defence-of-doorstopping
There are apparently two types, “Walts” who were never in the military and “bloaters” who were in regiments such as REME or the reserves for a month who then try and convince people they were in the SAS.
The rapid decline of reading should set alarm bells ringing at the Ministry of Education"
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/november-2025/time-to-start-a-new-chapter
If the Cabinet was running the country (and not all jostling to take over as PM) then I think you'd do a lot better.
Anyone have any idea what policy changes Streeting might bring if he became PM?
This isn't conducive to making a positive change.
We've raised $2.3B in Series D funding from Accel, Andreessen Horowitz, Coatue, Thrive, Nvidia, and Google.
https://x.com/cursor_ai/status/1988971258449682608?s=20
Keep Britain white?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/P2SGZoOA0tk
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-approval-rating-down-republicans-maga-b2864774.html
Whether he lied or told the truth is a function that collapses according to the observer and the observers view of who Epstein was talking about.
https://x.com/thenickpattison/status/1988730639236100331?s=20
I don't really see any obvious solution. Experience doesn't necessary means someone will be more effective, nor their media or political skills. So it just ends up a crapshoot, even if there are obvious red flags from some people if they are, say, especially economically illiterate or something.
Thr idea of J.D. Vance being Jesus is, to put it fairly mildly, challenging. His master, Peter Thiel, has also shown signs of Christian fundamentalism, recently.
https://x.com/thisisyourparty/status/1989058168828448842#m
https://x.com/JMcMurdockMP/status/1989084146258571570
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
Here's a chart of the marginal tax rate for someone with two kids. They pay 53% tax on every £ they earn between £60k and £80k. 62% on every £ they earn between £100k and £125k. 9% more if they've a student loan
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1989025656789668316?s=20
You can be £20k worse off at £100,001 than you were at £100,000 People know this. They make additional pension contributions, turn away work, refuse promotions, work 4 days a week...
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1989025660405223673?s=20
If Reeves is going to do a load of unpopular things, you might as well sort this out, because it definitely effects productivity / growth.
Is she going to fill the blackhole with for loads and loads of stealth taxes around the edges instead, that will probably add even more cliff edges, cost of doing business, etc?
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
https://www.ft.com/content/6cbb46b1-c075-453b-a9f9-7eb1e9120d9b
More popular than his party doesnt make him an asset.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2643743
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/13/who-votes-for-reform-and-why-charts-that-show-who-supports-farage-party?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
*In the downstairs toilet obviously, you weirdos. He does just go in the corner…
It really need across the board reform of what is and isn't VAT-able, but as Osborne found out you quickly run into trouble even trying to tinker with it.
It is not on their X feed and I just watched the programme and maybe I nodded off briefly but I don't recall any mention???
I thought the income tax increase / employee NI decrease wheeze was a good idea in the circumstances.
Actually, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. The last good idea they had (scrapping winter fuel allowance) was a political disaster and a failure.
Some more distorting tax rises to come I'm sure.
It is an FT breaking news.
Madness. Absolute madness. Do it. Be bold. Be bold or go home.
I just despair frankly,
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
FFS.
China, for all its huffing and puffing, needs trade with the West more than it needs warm and fuzzies with Russia. China is, to quote Yes, Prime Minister, giving Russia every support short of help.
I'm sorry but I am close to Leon levels of despair with the Starmer-Reeves double act.
In office but not in power.
This is just going to make everyone paranoid.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3xrdxelpno
"The chief executives of Scotland's four smallest councils are in line to get pay rises of as much as 24% after a review of local authority heads' pay.
The bosses of the councils in Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and Clackmannanshire will see their salary increase by more than £30,000 as a result of the review seen by BBC News.
The new pay framework agreed by council umbrella body Cosla and the group that represents bosses, Alace, has set salaries of between £165,755 and £230,620 based on council size."
... hilarity ensues? It really is puzzling that a review by well paid admins into well paid admins salaries results in well paid admins being paid more. At 'arms length' and above board, of course.
I wonder why his door was not secured.
There's a potential £5-10 bn pa there, especially if wholesale prices are due to fall.
Plus we need a Tonka-Tanker-Tax.
Perhaps they thought this was 'good news' and it would bounce them up 0.1% in the polls. For what that's worth.
@DeclanStones1
·
2h
If this wasn't 'left wingers' and Muslim MPs people would rightly call this out for what it is full blown misogyny, every single time they exclude the only female MP in their group and they attack Sultana on everything (not a Zarah fan myself, but plain to see what is happening)
Hard to see how you get such a large sum from back of the sofa scratching. To raise money on a mansion tax it’s going to be a very small mansion threshold to bring anything in. A two bedroom flat in London is now likely to be considered a mansion.