Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
Jenrick tells the BBC his defection was not about personal ambition and will unite the right. Which tells us that it definitely was about personal ambition. It may help to unite the right, but I doubt it will be in the way he thinks.
I’m biased, but from the clip I’ve seen he hardly comes across well. Claiming it’s not about personal ambition fails the sniff test on every front.
'As I have said Nigel Farage has done my spring cleaning and taken my problem away and we are all happier for it'
If he was such a piece of shit, why was he in the Shadow Cabinet until yesterday morning? The character and qualities of Jenners can't have been unknown to her.
That's implicit in the "my problem" description.
Tent pissing out syndrome; all parties of any size have to tolerate that to some extent, since sociopaths tend to be overrepresented in the political sphere for obvious reasons ?
'As I have said Nigel Farage has done my spring cleaning and taken my problem away and we are all happier for it'
If he was such a piece of shit, why was he in the Shadow Cabinet until yesterday morning? The character and qualities of Jenners can't have been unknown to her.
Due to political parties being coalitions, you end up with people in the leadership group the leader doesn't like.
Looks like we might be getting a resignation over the West Midlands Police/Macabi Haifi story.
EXCLUSIVE Goaded barrister calls X opponent 'ugly whore'
A barrister has reported himself to the Bar Standards Board for reacting rudely to provocative tweets.
Francis Hoar overstepped the mark while engaged in a heated exchange with fellow X debater Juwayriyyah Alam.
The pair were arguing about West Midland Police's decision to ban supporters of Tel Aviv Maccabi football club from coming to Birmingham to watch their team play Aston Villa.
West Midlands Police claimed that Maccabee fans had thrown Muslims into a river at a previous fixture in Amsterdam, but Dutch police later said that was untrue.
This week the force’s chief admitted it had used AI to compile evidence for MPs, and that Microsoft CoPilot had hallucinated a match between the Israeli club and West Ham United.
Commenting on the shambles, Hoar posted that “The Chief Constable must resign and, if he doesn’t, the Home Secretary should sack him”.
Alam responded, “It's funny - every single individual who has called for the West Midlands Police chief to resign is a staunch supporter of Israel and it's [sic] genocide”.
Hoar replied, “Not every single one of its supporters are lying supporters of genocidal Hamas and the violent thugs that beat up Jews in Amsterdam and Birmingham. But you and most of them are.”
Alam agreed, telling Hoar, “You mean when the tel aviv fans got fafo'd [‘f***ed around and found out’]? Yes I clapped.”
Having reached some kind of agreement, Hoar left it at that and went to have a cup of tea replied, “Go and fuck yourself”, adding in a further reply, “Ugly whore”.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
What right does the government have to this money? None at all. This is legalised theft. Tightening the entitlement of clients to the interest accrued would be fairer but I think the reason the rules are so "flexible" is that this could prove a nightmare to work out and allocate.
When I was a partner in a law firm we had an arrangement with the Bank that meant that we got an interest free overdraft to the value of the balance in our client account, effectively more than £1m interest free. I was never very happy with this arrangement from an ethical point of view because it seemed to me that we were making a secret profit at the cost of our clients but I cannot deny it greatly improved profitability and the financial security of the firm. Not clear to me how such an arrangement would be dealt with under these rules.
What right does the government have to any money whatsoever?
Surely if they design a tax that covers it, then they would have it. If they don't, they won't.
It's not a tax. The profits of the firms, including this interest, are already taxed. It is simply a seizure of money they think doesn't have a valid owner. But it does. Whether that is the firms or the clients is a matter for debate but it sure as hell isn't the government's money.
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
14/1 against Truss was during the end stages of Boris's hegemony.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
WTF ? It's bad enough the lawyers taking advantage of their clients. Why that provides an excuse for government to steal the money is beyond me.
If you think taxation is “theft” then you must be a 12 year old edge lord. I don’t think this is a good policy but good grief.
Normally, taxation is on a class of things, not specific.
Is this just a tax on interest on client money held by solicitors? Is a tax on interest on client money held by any organisation? Is a tax on interest on other peoples money held by anyone?
Looks like the government is back to their old favourite - trying to find taxes where no one will notice
Its not a tax, its a seizure. The interest is already reflected in the profits of the firm and is therefore already taxed. The government just wants to take the money.
Plenty of things are taxed above and beyond the profits of the firm. See duties etc
Looks like we might be getting a resignation over the West Midlands Police/Macabi Haifi story.
EXCLUSIVE Goaded barrister calls X opponent 'ugly whore'
A barrister has reported himself to the Bar Standards Board for reacting rudely to provocative tweets.
Francis Hoar overstepped the mark while engaged in a heated exchange with fellow X debater Juwayriyyah Alam.
The pair were arguing about West Midland Police's decision to ban supporters of Tel Aviv Maccabi football club from coming to Birmingham to watch their team play Aston Villa.
West Midlands Police claimed that Maccabee fans had thrown Muslims into a river at a previous fixture in Amsterdam, but Dutch police later said that was untrue.
This week the force’s chief admitted it had used AI to compile evidence for MPs, and that Microsoft CoPilot had hallucinated a match between the Israeli club and West Ham United.
Commenting on the shambles, Hoar posted that “The Chief Constable must resign and, if he doesn’t, the Home Secretary should sack him”.
Alam responded, “It's funny - every single individual who has called for the West Midlands Police chief to resign is a staunch supporter of Israel and it's [sic] genocide”.
Hoar replied, “Not every single one of its supporters are lying supporters of genocidal Hamas and the violent thugs that beat up Jews in Amsterdam and Birmingham. But you and most of them are.”
Alam agreed, telling Hoar, “You mean when the tel aviv fans got fafo'd [‘f***ed around and found out’]? Yes I clapped.”
Having reached some kind of agreement, Hoar left it at that and went to have a cup of tea replied, “Go and fuck yourself”, adding in a further reply, “Ugly whore”.
Looks like we might be getting a resignation over the West Midlands Police/Macabi Haifi story.
EXCLUSIVE Goaded barrister calls X opponent 'ugly whore'
A barrister has reported himself to the Bar Standards Board for reacting rudely to provocative tweets.
Francis Hoar overstepped the mark while engaged in a heated exchange with fellow X debater Juwayriyyah Alam.
The pair were arguing about West Midland Police's decision to ban supporters of Tel Aviv Maccabi football club from coming to Birmingham to watch their team play Aston Villa.
West Midlands Police claimed that Maccabee fans had thrown Muslims into a river at a previous fixture in Amsterdam, but Dutch police later said that was untrue.
This week the force’s chief admitted it had used AI to compile evidence for MPs, and that Microsoft CoPilot had hallucinated a match between the Israeli club and West Ham United.
Commenting on the shambles, Hoar posted that “The Chief Constable must resign and, if he doesn’t, the Home Secretary should sack him”.
Alam responded, “It's funny - every single individual who has called for the West Midlands Police chief to resign is a staunch supporter of Israel and it's [sic] genocide”.
Hoar replied, “Not every single one of its supporters are lying supporters of genocidal Hamas and the violent thugs that beat up Jews in Amsterdam and Birmingham. But you and most of them are.”
Alam agreed, telling Hoar, “You mean when the tel aviv fans got fafo'd [‘f***ed around and found out’]? Yes I clapped.”
Having reached some kind of agreement, Hoar left it at that and went to have a cup of tea replied, “Go and fuck yourself”, adding in a further reply, “Ugly whore”.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
What right does the government have to this money? None at all. This is legalised theft. Tightening the entitlement of clients to the interest accrued would be fairer but I think the reason the rules are so "flexible" is that this could prove a nightmare to work out and allocate.
When I was a partner in a law firm we had an arrangement with the Bank that meant that we got an interest free overdraft to the value of the balance in our client account, effectively more than £1m interest free. I was never very happy with this arrangement from an ethical point of view because it seemed to me that we were making a secret profit at the cost of our clients but I cannot deny it greatly improved profitability and the financial security of the firm. Not clear to me how such an arrangement would be dealt with under these rules.
What right does the government have to any money whatsoever?
Surely if they design a tax that covers it, then they would have it. If they don't, they won't.
It's not a tax. The profits of the firms, including this interest, are already taxed. It is simply a seizure of money they think doesn't have a valid owner. But it does. Whether that is the firms or the clients is a matter for debate but it sure as hell isn't the government's money.
If it's not a legally defined tax, then what is it?
The government can't just take money if it feels like it. We are not in Trump's America. Yet.
Looks like we might be getting a resignation over the West Midlands Police/Macabi Haifi story.
EXCLUSIVE Goaded barrister calls X opponent 'ugly whore'
A barrister has reported himself to the Bar Standards Board for reacting rudely to provocative tweets.
Francis Hoar overstepped the mark while engaged in a heated exchange with fellow X debater Juwayriyyah Alam.
The pair were arguing about West Midland Police's decision to ban supporters of Tel Aviv Maccabi football club from coming to Birmingham to watch their team play Aston Villa.
West Midlands Police claimed that Maccabee fans had thrown Muslims into a river at a previous fixture in Amsterdam, but Dutch police later said that was untrue.
This week the force’s chief admitted it had used AI to compile evidence for MPs, and that Microsoft CoPilot had hallucinated a match between the Israeli club and West Ham United.
Commenting on the shambles, Hoar posted that “The Chief Constable must resign and, if he doesn’t, the Home Secretary should sack him”.
Alam responded, “It's funny - every single individual who has called for the West Midlands Police chief to resign is a staunch supporter of Israel and it's [sic] genocide”.
Hoar replied, “Not every single one of its supporters are lying supporters of genocidal Hamas and the violent thugs that beat up Jews in Amsterdam and Birmingham. But you and most of them are.”
Alam agreed, telling Hoar, “You mean when the tel aviv fans got fafo'd [‘f***ed around and found out’]? Yes I clapped.”
Having reached some kind of agreement, Hoar left it at that and went to have a cup of tea replied, “Go and fuck yourself”, adding in a further reply, “Ugly whore”.
Kemi is a bit of a lucky general on this one I think. Much as I dislike Jenrick, if he’d have come out pre-budget and claimed no confidence in Badenoch or defected*, I think he’d have mortally wounded her leadership.
As her stock has risen somewhat since the budget, she’s survived it for now.
*of course this is a bit chicken and egg if you believe that the thing that has driven this decision now is that she’s strengthened her position in the party and his chances of taking over have receded
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
NEW: Final list of 29 councils who asked for elections to be delayed - covering 3.9 million voters and 591 council seats which would have been up for grabs
Ministers not expected to decide for a week or more amid back and forth with those not explicit about wanting delays
To the Lib Dem’s credit they are not trying to, with one exception, duck the elections.
But it is a smart move as they will be the winners of the night
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
What right does the government have to this money? None at all. This is legalised theft. Tightening the entitlement of clients to the interest accrued would be fairer but I think the reason the rules are so "flexible" is that this could prove a nightmare to work out and allocate.
When I was a partner in a law firm we had an arrangement with the Bank that meant that we got an interest free overdraft to the value of the balance in our client account, effectively more than £1m interest free. I was never very happy with this arrangement from an ethical point of view because it seemed to me that we were making a secret profit at the cost of our clients but I cannot deny it greatly improved profitability and the financial security of the firm. Not clear to me how such an arrangement would be dealt with under these rules.
What right does the government have to any money whatsoever?
Surely if they design a tax that covers it, then they would have it. If they don't, they won't.
It's not a tax. The profits of the firms, including this interest, are already taxed. It is simply a seizure of money they think doesn't have a valid owner. But it does. Whether that is the firms or the clients is a matter for debate but it sure as hell isn't the government's money.
If it's not a legally defined tax, then what is it?
The government can't just take money if it feels like it. We are not in Trump's America. Yet.
The government is bound by article 1 protocol 1 of ECHR which requires the State to respect property laws and rights. There are situations where the government becomes the owner by default in respect of bona vacantia, that is assets to which there is no legal owner,, an example being assets of a company that is struck off or where someone dies without a will or legal heirs, but this only arises where there is no legal owner to the rights. That is not the case here.
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
By that point it was clear she was bonkers (I seem to recall Cummings saying she was madder than a box of frogs), but then, by and large, so were the Tory members.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
What right does the government have to this money? None at all. This is legalised theft. Tightening the entitlement of clients to the interest accrued would be fairer but I think the reason the rules are so "flexible" is that this could prove a nightmare to work out and allocate.
When I was a partner in a law firm we had an arrangement with the Bank that meant that we got an interest free overdraft to the value of the balance in our client account, effectively more than £1m interest free. I was never very happy with this arrangement from an ethical point of view because it seemed to me that we were making a secret profit at the cost of our clients but I cannot deny it greatly improved profitability and the financial security of the firm. Not clear to me how such an arrangement would be dealt with under these rules.
What right does the government have to any money whatsoever?
Surely if they design a tax that covers it, then they would have it. If they don't, they won't.
It's not a tax. The profits of the firms, including this interest, are already taxed. It is simply a seizure of money they think doesn't have a valid owner. But it does. Whether that is the firms or the clients is a matter for debate but it sure as hell isn't the government's money.
If it's not a legally defined tax, then what is it?
The government can't just take money if it feels like it. We are not in Trump's America. Yet.
The government is bound by article 1 protocol 1 of ECHR which requires the State to respect property laws and rights. There are situations where the government becomes the owner by default in respect of bona vacantia, that is assets to which there is no legal owner,, an example being assets of a company that is struck off or where someone dies without a will or legal heirs, but this only arises where there is no legal owner to the rights. That is not the case here.
None of which prevents the government from instituting a tax, plenty of which exist, and almost all of which exist on top of corporation tax.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
What right does the government have to this money? None at all. This is legalised theft. Tightening the entitlement of clients to the interest accrued would be fairer but I think the reason the rules are so "flexible" is that this could prove a nightmare to work out and allocate.
When I was a partner in a law firm we had an arrangement with the Bank that meant that we got an interest free overdraft to the value of the balance in our client account, effectively more than £1m interest free. I was never very happy with this arrangement from an ethical point of view because it seemed to me that we were making a secret profit at the cost of our clients but I cannot deny it greatly improved profitability and the financial security of the firm. Not clear to me how such an arrangement would be dealt with under these rules.
What right does the government have to any money whatsoever?
Surely if they design a tax that covers it, then they would have it. If they don't, they won't.
It's not a tax. The profits of the firms, including this interest, are already taxed. It is simply a seizure of money they think doesn't have a valid owner. But it does. Whether that is the firms or the clients is a matter for debate but it sure as hell isn't the government's money.
If it's not a legally defined tax, then what is it?
The government can't just take money if it feels like it. We are not in Trump's America. Yet.
The government is bound by article 1 protocol 1 of ECHR which requires the State to respect property laws and rights. There are situations where the government becomes the owner by default in respect of bona vacantia, that is assets to which there is no legal owner,, an example being assets of a company that is struck off or where someone dies without a will or legal heirs, but this only arises where there is no legal owner to the rights. That is not the case here.
Indeed.
Which is why I am asking what is the taxation method here - the word "requisitioning" seems odd. Does it have some legal context/implication?
I know we probably don't want to talk about Transgender rights but the long running Darlington Hospital Tribunal case has just found for the women https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62nwl7j44gt
Makes the Peggie judgment look even more bizarre than it did already.
Thresholds. One (Peggie) employed a threshold. Another (Darlington) did not, or assumed there was one and that six nurses crossed it.
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
By that point it was clear she was bonkers (I seem to recall Cummings saying she was madder than a box of frogs), but then, by and large, so were the Tory members.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
I think there is a huge bias in the Establishment generally – Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street – in favour of Oxford so that is how I bet.
Ask yourself who are the most ridiculed and reviled leaders over the past few decades. Jim Callaghan, John Major, Neil Kinnock, IDS, Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbyn – none of them Oxford men.
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
By that point it was clear she was bonkers (I seem to recall Cummings saying she was madder than a box of frogs), but then, by and large, so were the Tory members.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
I think there is a huge bias in the Establishment generally – Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street – in favour of Oxford so that is how I bet.
Ask yourself who are the most ridiculed and reviled leaders over the past few decades. Jim Callaghan, John Major, Neil Kinnock, IDS, Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbyn – none of them Oxford men.
John Major wasn't personally reviled. A portion of his MPs were.
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
By that point it was clear she was bonkers (I seem to recall Cummings saying she was madder than a box of frogs), but then, by and large, so were the Tory members.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
I think there is a huge bias in the Establishment generally – Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street – in favour of Oxford so that is how I bet.
Ask yourself who are the most ridiculed and reviled leaders over the past few decades. Jim Callaghan, John Major, Neil Kinnock, IDS, Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbyn – none of them Oxford men.
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
By that point it was clear she was bonkers (I seem to recall Cummings saying she was madder than a box of frogs), but then, by and large, so were the Tory members.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
I think there is a huge bias in the Establishment generally – Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street – in favour of Oxford so that is how I bet.
Ask yourself who are the most ridiculed and reviled leaders over the past few decades. Jim Callaghan, John Major, Neil Kinnock, IDS, Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbyn – none of them Oxford men.
John Major wasn't personally reviled. A portion of his MPs were.
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
By that point it was clear she was bonkers (I seem to recall Cummings saying she was madder than a box of frogs), but then, by and large, so were the Tory members.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
I think there is a huge bias in the Establishment generally – Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street – in favour of Oxford so that is how I bet.
Ask yourself who are the most ridiculed and reviled leaders over the past few decades. Jim Callaghan, John Major, Neil Kinnock, IDS, Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbyn – none of them Oxford men.
John Major wasn't personally reviled. A portion of his MPs were.
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
By that point it was clear she was bonkers (I seem to recall Cummings saying she was madder than a box of frogs), but then, by and large, so were the Tory members.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
I think there is a huge bias in the Establishment generally – Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street – in favour of Oxford so that is how I bet.
Ask yourself who are the most ridiculed and reviled leaders over the past few decades. Jim Callaghan, John Major, Neil Kinnock, IDS, Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbyn – none of them Oxford men.
John Major wasn't personally reviled. A portion of his MPs were.
'More peas, Norma?' Underpants on the outside.
Laughed at by some - but not reviled.
I think he was - and his subsequent (at least partial) rehabilitation - means that we might forget how personally unpopular he was by the time of the 1997 election.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
You ask for more knowledge than the reports, and - lo - I provide...
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
14/1? I'd want one - probably two - noughts on that...
A good bet, if it had been placed in early 2022.
The Truss non-bet was from October, 2021.
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
By that point it was clear she was bonkers (I seem to recall Cummings saying she was madder than a box of frogs), but then, by and large, so were the Tory members.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
I think there is a huge bias in the Establishment generally – Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street – in favour of Oxford so that is how I bet.
Ask yourself who are the most ridiculed and reviled leaders over the past few decades. Jim Callaghan, John Major, Neil Kinnock, IDS, Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbyn – none of them Oxford men.
John Major wasn't personally reviled. A portion of his MPs were.
'More peas, Norma?' Underpants on the outside.
Laughed at by some - but not reviled.
I think he was - and his subsequent (at least partial) rehabilitation - means that we might forget how personally unpopular he was by the time of the 1997 election.
From what I recall at the time, Major was considerably less disliked than the MPs - See Neil Hamilton.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
All of those go to the Exchequer. This is entirely hypothecated.
To be honest I assume the MoJ are kite flying on the client interest thing. As mentioned it is used elsewhere to fund legal aid etc. so why not ask the question?
Of course it will put the Law Society et al in a tricky bind. They can’t exactly whinge about the state of the court system / legal aid / access to justice on the one hand and also argue that this interest (which really belongs to the client) should be left to for the lawyers alone.
Personally I do think the justice system has been salami sliced to near collapse (primarily because MoJ wasn’t protected spend under austerity - but more generally because cuts to it tend not to have political salience). So more money would be welcome - is this the right source of the money? Possibly not. But, as mentioned I fail to see why this money should stay in the pockets of the law firms (I appreciate that in some way it may help depress hourly rate increases - but is that really justifiable: We kept the interest on your money so we could charge you and all our other clients twenty pound less an hour).
Overall I have always thought it would make sense for lawyers to stop holding client money. It is often too tempting for dodgy lawyers and has some alarming examples of money laundering. Some sort of industrywide pooled virtual account arrangement would probably lead to lower insurance premiums, fewer calls on the comp fund and lower risk. Of course it won’t happen.
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
I think Reform are really struggling to increase their ceiling now, and I'm not sure being the ex-Tory show is going to help at all with that. They may still get a big boost out of results in May, but for now, there is a feeling of having stalled.
I wonder if some of these defections are emphasising a little more strongly that Farage needs a team to take power and govern, and that the track record of the people he's wooing isn't instilling a tremendous degree of confidence.#
Instead of Tory defections I think he'd have been much better wooing business leaders, experts in their field etc to his tent to try and demonstrate capability in different areas of government.
If Tim Shipman is to be believed, that is exactly what Farage is trying to do. However it's a reasonable bet that real business leaders and real experts would only talk to Reform and get on board in any way at all, however conditional, on the basis of absolute confidentiality until there is a Reform administration. Otherwise they trash their reputations with many to no personal advantage.
In other words, if it is successfully occurring we are not going to know.
Starmer is finally going to institute a ban I agree with. Congrats to him.
"Starmer poised to ban under-16s from social media Prime Minister drops opposition to Australian-style age restrictions and wants further protections for children online" (£)
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
"Think about it. You never see Reform’s defectors after the initial unveiling press conference, and I’m beginning to wonder what happens to them. I think Nigel amateurishly embalms them or stuffs them with horsehair and sackcloth, then seats them round a “cabinet” table in his cellar, where they all silently agree with him at all times, and never interrupt him."
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
The Tories really need to focus on Lib Dem’s in the old southern blue wall. I suspect those wanting them just to,fight reform want blue on blue action to harm both.
Many of the seats Reform are likely to pick up are red wall never been Tory or only once been Tory. What good,does it the Tories to batter reform in Hull East or Barnsley East ?
They need, IMV as I am not a Tory, to be distinct from them but focus where and who they fight.
Remind me. Did he promised he would and then he didn't, or promised he wouldn't and then he did, or is promising that he will and we know he won't? I've honestly lost track,
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
What right does the government have to this money? None at all. This is legalised theft. Tightening the entitlement of clients to the interest accrued would be fairer but I think the reason the rules are so "flexible" is that this could prove a nightmare to work out and allocate.
When I was a partner in a law firm we had an arrangement with the Bank that meant that we got an interest free overdraft to the value of the balance in our client account, effectively more than £1m interest free. I was never very happy with this arrangement from an ethical point of view because it seemed to me that we were making a secret profit at the cost of our clients but I cannot deny it greatly improved profitability and the financial security of the firm. Not clear to me how such an arrangement would be dealt with under these rules.
I’ve not dealt with a client account for years but I have seen some accounts where the first million earns x interest and anything above earns x+.5%, good luck apportioning that.
Total interest on a given day * individual client funds in the account at 12 noon / total client funds in the account at 12 noon.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
It’s terrible this govt, the PM and the Chancellor get criticised. They are just doing their best.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
It’s terrible this govt, the PM and the Chancellor get criticised. They are just doing their best.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
Won’t that just result in law firms handing all client interest back (as they should)
I can't imagine that Taylor Rose made only £100K profit, as that means the partners would have had to share £100K between each other.
I presume it means there was a 100K surplus after the partners had filled their boots. Maybe they couldn't work out how to divide such a piddling little sum.
Starmer is finally going to institute a ban I agree with. Congrats to him.
"Starmer poised to ban under-16s from social media Prime Minister drops opposition to Australian-style age restrictions and wants further protections for children online" (£)
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
There is a lot of truth in your post. Following Farage down the “Climate Change not a priority” hole is huge policy error from Kemi right now.
But party policy it’s not just one person with one feed in reality is it. It’s a whole team of policy wonks, close colleagues, business managers etc, and what extent they all draw from the same Mad, US Neo Con feed so they are an echo chamber, and not robust discussion group.
Conservative Party policy under Badenoch now needs to come under the spotlight. Is Badenoch Policy platform actually shrinking the parties appeal across the electorate, and puts it in direct fight with Reform for the same group of “not enough to win” voters?
If there isn’t policy clarity by the time of the campaign, it will be as disastrous as the one under Sunak. You can’t just put meat on the bones at the last moment, you need to be winning voters back long before that, with the aroma of beef rib roasting in your oven.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
"Think about it. You never see Reform’s defectors after the initial unveiling press conference, and I’m beginning to wonder what happens to them. I think Nigel amateurishly embalms them or stuffs them with horsehair and sackcloth, then seats them round a “cabinet” table in his cellar, where they all silently agree with him at all times, and never interrupt him."
So she is saying that Farage is actually Emperor Cartagia?
Starmer is finally going to institute a ban I agree with. Congrats to him.
"Starmer poised to ban under-16s from social media Prime Minister drops opposition to Australian-style age restrictions and wants further protections for children online" (£)
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
Starmer is finally going to institute a ban I agree with. Congrats to him.
"Starmer poised to ban under-16s from social media Prime Minister drops opposition to Australian-style age restrictions and wants further protections for children online" (£)
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok. Here it is
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
You're going to have to go to Greenland soon, if it's to count as a new country
Remind me. Did he promised he would and then he didn't, or promised he wouldn't and then he did, or is promising that he will and we know he won't? I've honestly lost track,
He promised that he would think about promising to think about thinking about thinking about promising that he would {no carrier}
Further, he is shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover government is going on. As soon as he finds the people making all the decisions, he will fix everything.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
There is a lot of truth in your post. Following Farage down the “Climate Change not a priority” hole is huge policy error from Kemi right now.
But party policy it’s not just one person with one feed in reality is it. It’s a whole team of policy wonks, close colleagues, business managers etc, and what extent they all draw from the same Mad, US Neo Con feed so they are an echo chamber, and not robust discussion group.
Conservative Party policy under Badenoch now needs to come under the spotlight. Is Badenoch Policy platform actually shrinking the parties appeal across the electorate, and puts it in direct fight with Reform for the same group of “not enough to win” voters?
If there isn’t policy clarity by the time of the campaign, it will be as disastrous as the one under Sunak. You can’t just put meat on the bones at the last moment, you need to be winning voters back long before that, with the aroma of beef rib roasting in your oven.
She does have this problem now of looking like the more moderate alternative to Honest Bob and his friends, and handling yesterday's issues with a certain amount of wittier, airier aplomb than him, but still with her track record of being friendly with people like Vance, contradicting this potential image.
She needs to decide what horse to ride, which sounds like a Beatles song.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
The Tories really need to focus on Lib Dem’s in the old southern blue wall. I suspect those wanting them just to,fight reform want blue on blue action to harm both.
Many of the seats Reform are likely to pick up are red wall never been Tory or only once been Tory. What good,does it the Tories to batter reform in Hull East or Barnsley East ?
They need, IMV as I am not a Tory, to be distinct from them but focus where and who they fight.
Yes. Farage has listed why he thinks Reform are different,
“we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.‘
so Kemi and her team need to unashamedly point out their policy differences with Farage and why Conservatives don’t agree with him.
That’s is what politics is about at the end of the day, campaigning and explaining your own unique positions and why they are different.
As the Party of Government in the UK for most the last 100 years, the UKs success of immigration and integration is owned by the Conservative Party. UKs successful time in Europe is owned by the Conservative Party, and all the pro business and economic good it gave UK is owned by the Conservative Party, for negotiating us in, against Labour policy, and then designing the single market for the EU so that it worked effectively and fairly. The Climate Change Act updated to net zero by Conservative Government gives UK statutory long-term emissions target – being liked by business community when progress is legislated 12 years in advance and monitored by an independent body, the Climate Change Committee - this gives UK institutional rhythm on action, reducing uncertainty and enabling long-term planning, businesses know formal set pieces, such as the CCC’s annual report to parliament, can time interventions accordingly. Inspired by such business friendly approach UK’s Conservative Party built here - over 60 countries have copied UK climate change laws, and half of those have CCC advisory bodies too, making UK, thanks to our Conservative Party, a climate leader in the whole world!
"Think about it. You never see Reform’s defectors after the initial unveiling press conference, and I’m beginning to wonder what happens to them. I think Nigel amateurishly embalms them or stuffs them with horsehair and sackcloth, then seats them round a “cabinet” table in his cellar, where they all silently agree with him at all times, and never interrupt him."
save for Andrea Jenkyns who is rigged up to a wind-up gramophone and occasionally bursts into a crackly rendition of Deeply Dippy ?
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
We still need you commenting a bit in between your glamorous travels and writing. Not least as every time you post it at least doubles the percentage of Reform backing posters on here and with Reform polling still 25-30% of the vote we need some Farage backers to reflect all viewpoints still
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
They're also restricted, so that they can act as 'indicators' that bookmakers have gotten prices wrong. OGH used to find it hysterical that he was restricted to sub one pound bets on anything political with Paddy Power.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
That looks like the place you recommended me to visit in 2014 on my one and only visit to Bangkok so far. Can't remember the name of it.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
It’s terrible this govt, the PM and the Chancellor get criticised. They are just doing their best.
You've taken my comment in an oddly offended way there, Taz. That's twice today. What's up?
Yes, and often complete idiots are caught in the crossfire, heavily restricted but not barred so bookies can boast to shareholders about the number of accounts.
They're also restricted, so that they can act as 'indicators' that bookmakers have gotten prices wrong. OGH used to find it hysterical that he was restricted to sub one pound bets on anything political with Paddy Power.
The good news is that Paddy Power no longer restrict any of my bets on politics because they no longer offer any political bets.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Yes it will be interesting to see if the balance changes now we have a confirmed Starmer 24 supporter back.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
The Tories really need to focus on Lib Dem’s in the old southern blue wall. I suspect those wanting them just to,fight reform want blue on blue action to harm both.
Many of the seats Reform are likely to pick up are red wall never been Tory or only once been Tory. What good,does it the Tories to batter reform in Hull East or Barnsley East ?
They need, IMV as I am not a Tory, to be distinct from them but focus where and who they fight.
Yes. Farage has listed why he thinks Reform are different,
“we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.‘
so Kemi and her team need to unashamedly point out their policy differences with Farage and why Conservatives don’t agree with him.
That’s is what politics is about at the end of the day, campaigning and explaining your own unique positions and why they are different.
As the Party of Government in the UK for most the last 100 years, the UKs success of immigration and integration is owned by the Conservative Party. UKs successful time in Europe is owned by the Conservative Party, and all the pro business and economic good it gave UK is owned by the Conservative Party, for negotiating us in, against Labour policy, and then designing the single market for the EU so that it worked effectively and fairly. The Climate Change Act updated to net zero by Conservative Government gives UK statutory long-term emissions target – being liked by business community when progress is legislated 12 years in advance and monitored by an independent body, the Climate Change Committee - this gives UK institutional rhythm on action, reducing uncertainty and enabling long-term planning, businesses know formal set pieces, such as the CCC’s annual report to parliament, can time interventions accordingly. Inspired by such business friendly approach UK’s Conservative Party built here - over 60 countries have copied UK climate change laws, and half of those have CCC advisory bodies too, making UK, thanks to our Conservative Party, a climate leader in the whole world!
Slap Farage with that.
And ignore the Lib Dem’s who are a greater opponent ?
'As I have said Nigel Farage has done my spring cleaning and taken my problem away and we are all happier for it'
If he was such a piece of shit, why was he in the Shadow Cabinet until yesterday morning? The character and qualities of Jenners can't have been unknown to her.
Have you tried to put together a shadow cabinet of Conservative MPs? Once you eliminate the incompetent, the incontinent, and the incoherent, then there's not a whole lot of options left.
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
That looks like the place you recommended me to visit in 2014 on my one and only visit to Bangkok so far. Can't remember the name of it.
Unlikely as this place was only built in about 2018!
It’s the Novotel on soi 4, khlong toei. One of the better value rooftop bars in bangers. Good value. Great cocktails. Amazing views
Bangkok in January remains the best place on earth. Closely followed by Phnom Penh and Siem reap
Still laughing at the Bobby Jenrick self-fragmentation device "“I came to the conclusion over the course of the last year or so that … the party hadn’t changed, that the people who’d made those mistakes were still sat around the shadow cabinet table" at least there's one less now Bobby. I think there's a very good chance that he has, briefly, United the right.
1,370 soldiers and 51 artillery and MLRS no longer reporting for duty in the Russian Army after yesterday...
They’re also losing ground on the front lines, having spread themselves too thin to try and avoid the drone wave.
Meanwhile, Russian newspapers aren’t holding back with stories of economic woes, and the Chinese are slowly moving border fences in the far East.
The optimist in me thinks this war must be close to being over now.
I hope you're right: Zelenskky has agreed to freezing the front lines several times, but Putin has always refused - not least because Ukraine will not give up uncaptured land.
@kateferguson4 · 3m Rumours West Midlands police chief Craig Guildford is going to announce he’s stepping down at 4pm today.
Comes after the Tel Aviv fans fiasco.
Good riddance.
He totally inverted the actual problem, fabricated evidence to support his decision, and has refused to back down several times despite the HS saying in Parliament that she has no confidence in him.
'As I have said Nigel Farage has done my spring cleaning and taken my problem away and we are all happier for it'
If he was such a piece of shit, why was he in the Shadow Cabinet until yesterday morning? The character and qualities of Jenners can't have been unknown to her.
Have you tried to put together a shadow cabinet of Conservative MPs? Once you eliminate the incompetent, the incontinent, and the incoherent, then there's not a whole lot of options left.
Have you tried to put together a cabinet of any MPs? Once you eliminate the incompetent, the incontinent, and the incoherent, then there's not a whole lot of options left.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
1,370 soldiers and 51 artillery and MLRS no longer reporting for duty in the Russian Army after yesterday...
They’re also losing ground on the front lines, having spread themselves too thin to try and avoid the drone wave.
Meanwhile, Russian newspapers aren’t holding back with stories of economic woes, and the Chinese are slowly moving border fences in the far East.
The optimist in me thinks this war must be close to being over now.
How many Ukrainians have deserted /AWOL though? At least 20,000 a month since late 2025 apparently 🧐
There was a truly WTF story on Inter (Ukrainian TV channel) about a car full of deserters who tried to ram through the border into Romania in a (presumably stolen) British registered L322 Range Rover. They ran over a border guard, the RR stopped working after it went through a fence and then most of them mysteriously died in custody.
In other Ukrainian news, I see that ever reliable EU stooge Kira Rudik has switched allegiance from Z to the Chocolate King and called for elections. If she has done that, it's because somebody in Brussels told her to.
'As I have said Nigel Farage has done my spring cleaning and taken my problem away and we are all happier for it'
If he was such a piece of shit, why was he in the Shadow Cabinet until yesterday morning? The character and qualities of Jenners can't have been unknown to her.
Have you tried to put together a shadow cabinet of Conservative MPs? Once you eliminate the incompetent, the incontinent, and the incoherent, then there's not a whole lot of options left.
That's why Kemi made it easier for herself by ignoring the first criteria
1,370 soldiers and 51 artillery and MLRS no longer reporting for duty in the Russian Army after yesterday...
They’re also losing ground on the front lines, having spread themselves too thin to try and avoid the drone wave.
Meanwhile, Russian newspapers aren’t holding back with stories of economic woes, and the Chinese are slowly moving border fences in the far East.
The optimist in me thinks this war must be close to being over now.
I hope you're right: Zelenskky has agreed to freezing the front lines several times, but Putin has always refused - not least because Ukraine will not give up uncaptured land.
Do you think Putin is ready to change his mind?
Not yet, because the word won’t be getting back to him just how much ground they’re losing on the battlefield.
He still thinks they hold Kupyansk and Prokovsk, because that’s what his generals last told him. They’ve held neither town.
That's not that crazy: before they went all final solution, Nazi Germany wanted all the Jews to leave for Palestine.
Erm, wasn't that the allegedly antisemitic slur that saw Ken Livingstone cancelled?
It was and there was that embarrassing, and not at all staged, scene where he’s in his mobile and John Mann was renting at him. Utter clown show from both
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
I think for me the issues that are arising out of the these judgements is that organisations (notably so far NHS trusts) have very much gone with the self ID, EDI is best, support for trans etc line and somewhere along the way lost the point about safe spaces for women. Its almost as if 'womens rights' has been won, and now we move onto the next struggle, which is of course, completely wrong.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.
Comments
Meanwhile, Russian newspapers aren’t holding back with stories of economic woes, and the Chinese are slowly moving border fences in the far East.
The optimist in me thinks this war must be close to being over now.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
Tent pissing out syndrome; all parties of any size have to tolerate that to some extent, since sociopaths tend to be overrepresented in the political sphere for obvious reasons ?
See Corbyn and Starmer.
That's hardly unprecedented.
The government can't just take money if it feels like it. We are not in Trump's America. Yet.
As her stock has risen somewhat since the budget, she’s survived it for now.
*of course this is a bit chicken and egg if you believe that the thing that has driven this decision now is that she’s strengthened her position in the party and his chances of taking over have receded
ETA it might have been a pb tip. I can't remember that far back. Or it may have been my own system, which is anyone from Oxford (so not Kemi).
NEW: Final list of 29 councils who asked for elections to be delayed - covering 3.9 million voters and 591 council seats which would have been up for grabs
Ministers not expected to decide for a week or more amid back and forth with those not explicit about wanting delays
To the Lib Dem’s credit they are not trying to, with one exception, duck the elections.
But it is a smart move as they will be the winners of the night
Shame on Labour. Clearly running scared.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
p.s. Again a measure of the slow strengthening of the Tory party is that a lot of those members will have now gone over to Reform.
Which is why I am asking what is the taxation method here - the word "requisitioning" seems odd. Does it have some legal context/implication?
Ask yourself who are the most ridiculed and reviled leaders over the past few decades. Jim Callaghan, John Major, Neil Kinnock, IDS, Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbyn – none of them Oxford men.
Ah, but I'm forgetting PG studies
Thank God the Brexiters' wet dream of a domino effect out of the bloc never happened, given the current international situation.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with.
The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ms-b-hutchinson-and-others-v-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-foundation-trust/
This is entirely hypothecated.
Of course it will put the Law Society et al in a tricky bind. They can’t exactly whinge about the state of the court system / legal aid / access to justice on the one hand and also argue that this interest (which really belongs to the client) should be left to for the lawyers alone.
Personally I do think the justice system has been salami sliced to near collapse (primarily because MoJ wasn’t protected spend under austerity - but more generally because cuts to it tend not to have political salience). So more money would be welcome - is this the right source of the money? Possibly not. But, as mentioned I fail to see why this money should stay in the pockets of the law firms (I appreciate that in some way it may help depress hourly rate increases - but is that really justifiable: We kept the interest on your money so we could charge you and all our other clients twenty pound less an hour).
Overall I have always thought it would make sense for lawyers to stop holding client money. It is often too tempting for dodgy lawyers and has some alarming examples of money laundering. Some sort of industrywide pooled virtual account arrangement would probably lead to lower insurance premiums, fewer calls on the comp fund and lower risk. Of course it won’t happen.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
·
3m
Rumours West Midlands police chief Craig Guildford is going to announce he’s stepping down at 4pm today.
Comes after the Tel Aviv fans fiasco.
In other words, if it is successfully occurring we are not going to know.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/16/starmer-poised-to-ban-under-16s-from-social-media/
"Starmer poised to ban under-16s from social media
Prime Minister drops opposition to Australian-style age restrictions and wants further protections for children online" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/16/starmer-poised-to-ban-under-16s-from-social-media/
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
"Think about it. You never see Reform’s defectors after the initial unveiling press conference, and I’m beginning to wonder what happens to them. I think Nigel amateurishly embalms them or stuffs them with horsehair and sackcloth, then seats them round a “cabinet” table in his cellar, where they all silently agree with him at all times, and never interrupt him."
Utter clown country.
https://x.com/courtnewsuk/status/2012162785862459502?s=61
And yes.
Many of the seats Reform are likely to pick up are red wall never been Tory or only once been Tory. What good,does it the Tories to batter reform in Hull East or Barnsley East ?
They need, IMV as I am not a Tory, to be distinct from them but focus where and who they fight.
https://x.com/osint613/status/2012160129341194590?s=61
I presume it means there was a 100K surplus after the partners had filled their boots. Maybe they couldn't work out how to divide such a piddling little sum.
But party policy it’s not just one person with one feed in reality is it. It’s a whole team of policy wonks, close colleagues, business managers etc, and what extent they all draw from the same Mad, US Neo Con feed so they are an echo chamber, and not robust discussion group.
Conservative Party policy under Badenoch now needs to come under the spotlight. Is Badenoch Policy platform actually shrinking the parties appeal across the electorate, and puts it in direct fight with Reform for the same group of “not enough to win” voters?
If there isn’t policy clarity by the time of the campaign, it will be as disastrous as the one under Sunak. You can’t just put meat on the bones at the last moment, you need to be winning voters back long before that, with the aroma of beef rib roasting in your oven.
Remember the COVID polling. Something like 25% wanted the nightclubs closed and never re-open (think they found a soulmate in Reeves).
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am
now. Here it is
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
Further, he is shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover government is going on. As soon as he finds the people making all the decisions, he will fix everything.
She needs to decide what horse to ride, which sounds like a Beatles song.
“we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.‘
so Kemi and her team need to unashamedly point out their policy differences with Farage and why Conservatives don’t agree with him.
That’s is what politics is about at the end of the day, campaigning and explaining your own unique positions and why they are different.
As the Party of Government in the UK for most the last 100 years, the UKs success of immigration and integration is owned by the Conservative Party.
UKs successful time in Europe is owned by the Conservative Party, and all the pro business and economic good it gave UK is owned by the Conservative Party, for negotiating us in, against Labour policy, and then designing the single market for the EU so that it worked effectively and fairly.
The Climate Change Act updated to net zero by Conservative Government gives UK statutory long-term emissions target – being liked by business community when progress is legislated 12 years in advance and monitored by an independent body, the Climate Change Committee - this gives UK institutional rhythm on action, reducing uncertainty and enabling long-term planning, businesses know formal set pieces, such as the CCC’s annual report to parliament, can time interventions accordingly.
Inspired by such business friendly approach UK’s Conservative Party built here - over 60 countries have copied UK climate change laws, and half of those have CCC advisory bodies too, making UK, thanks to our Conservative Party, a climate leader in the whole world!
Slap Farage with that.
This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
It’s the Novotel on soi 4, khlong toei. One of the better value rooftop bars in bangers. Good value. Great cocktails. Amazing views
Bangkok in January remains the best place on earth. Closely followed by Phnom Penh and Siem reap
I think there's a very good chance that he has, briefly, United the right.
Do you think Putin is ready to change his mind?
He totally inverted the actual problem, fabricated evidence to support his decision, and has refused to back down several times despite the HS saying in Parliament that she has no confidence in him.
In other Ukrainian news, I see that ever reliable EU stooge Kira Rudik has switched allegiance from Z to the Chocolate King and called for elections. If she has done that, it's because somebody in Brussels told her to.
He still thinks they hold Kupyansk and Prokovsk, because that’s what his generals last told him. They’ve held neither town.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.