Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Many with dementia will live long enough to breach £86k. Easily. Over five years, maybe over ten, will not be unusual. £86k is 18 months of costs.
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
I don't know if it was intentional, but if it was I like the idea of someone who is comfortable with multiple identities. I think it's healthy on many levels that she might feel she can do this while clearly also being very proud of being British. If that is bonkers, so be it!
You’re wishing that she was doing it, that’s what’s barking. I don’t care what she wears to be honest.
Nor do I. But it is true that I am drawn to the idea of people being comfortable with multiple identities and think it reflects well on places where they feel they can express these. As I say, if that is barking so be it!
No, it’s not barking to think that, that’s not what I’m criticising. It’s the fact that you saw her outfit and thought she’s wearing those colours for that reason.
Mr. W, aye, alongside a shedload of media duties (as I understand it).
Salaries can vary a lot, though, from surprisingly low to megabucks. I forget the precise stat (maybe $240k per week) but Schumacher in his Ferrari days made a staggering sum, and that's before sponsorship.
According to Google, Hamilton has an estimated net worth of $825m.
Serena Williams is on, apparently $210m.
I find that hard to believe with all the endorsements she must have had.
Hamilton will be being paid a lot more though. At about $55 million a year, that’s probably 4-5 times what a tennis player could earn in prize money even if they won every tournament. Plus he will be having all his coaching, nutritionists, physio etc provided by McLaren and Serena will have to pay for her own.
I'm not surprised hes wealthier, but how low her wealth is despite such a long career.
AIUI tennis players fund their own teams. Trainers, medics, hangers-on, tax accountants etc...
Do F1 Drivers get nearly all of it from their 'employer'?
Items like costs of travel, accommodation, personal trainer, event passes etc, are usually the sticking points in F1 driver negotiations, especially at the lower end of the scale. The big disagreements are media and sponsor commitments to the team, and personal sponsorship deals.
For any touring sportsperson, the costs are horrendous over the course of a year. Golfers and tennis players hope they can find sponsorship, to pay for all the flights and hotels required for themselves and their teams.
I think that is a mistake. Not a mistake like renewing Cressida Dick's appointment, which made me sick to my stomach, but a mistake. We need to build defences that can operate short of lockdowns if England follows the same trend as Scotland did once the schools went back. The ability to control the congregation of people with vaccine passports is an obvious intermediate step. We will not have that in our armoury. Mistake.
FWIW Labour is requiring all delegates to the conference to show evidence of double vaccination or have an immediate test. Seems sensible to me. Labour conferences to me are like night-clubs to MaxPB - I love them. However, I would prefer not to get Covid, and if someone with Covid wants to attend they can piss right off. Surely most crowded venues will feel the same?
Exactly so Nick. I suspect that private venues will effectively bring in Covid passports anyway and the government is wrong not to facilitate this trend.
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Err, what?
I said last week that she had no chance, and I’m now saying she has a much better chance having won the tournament.
Do you even understand what the English words 'no chance' mean? If you write no chance you don't suddenly get the right to revise the words into 'by no chance I really meant not a lot of chance.' Your kind of langauge is dangerous in betting circles.
I said at the time that you'd written something silly.
The context to my comment was that she had no chance *unless she wins the tournament*.
How not to admit you were wrong. Now you're adding words that you didn't put.
We all make mistakes. The secret to success is to admit them, if not to others at least to yourself. To attempt to re-write what you said belittles yourself. Take some time out and reflect.
So, I wonder who will land the big sponsorship deal with Emma? Someone is going to pay her an enormous amount of money for the modern face of a global superstar.
Emma Raducanu can have more than one sponsor, and from inside and outside the tennis world. Look at the logos plastered all over Lewis Hamilton when he wins the Italian Grand Prix this afternoon. And she can appear in adverts separately from sponsorship. Since she is fluent in Mandarin as well as English, the huge Chinese market is also open to her.
I expect that she also may well change perceptions of the British-Romanian community. Even Nigel Farage seems to be changing his mind over having Romanians as neighbours.
I note she came here aged 2, which would have been 2005 or so. Did her father come on his Romanian passport under FOM, with his Chinese spouse?
Why is this even being discussed? As you say, she came here at the age of two and obviously qualifies to represent Britain or she wouldn't be allowed to represent Britain.
We should just be celebrating her remarkable achievement.
We're discussing it because a country which has chunks of the population celebrating romanian migrants going home is also celebrating a romanian migrant winning the tennis.
Isn't that a bit clunky? I mean, are you suspicious about countries which were knocking merry hell out of one another in the middle of the last century now getting together and celebrating political unity by belting out an overblown anthem originating in the aggressor country?
I'm not talking about the middle of the last century. I'm talking this year. People wanted forrin to go home. They voted for brexit to have them go home. They're celebrating the forrin going away - and Romanian migrants are the literal bogeymen. And now celebrate a Romanian migrant as one of their own.
Perhaps the forrin are only ok when they grow up to speak with the tennis accent and win for their adopted country? Less so when they clean up your mother's piss in a care home.
You need to work on what "literally" means, and "Romanian" for that matter, and what on earth is incoherent about wanting anyone we can get to win tennis titles for us, and UK citizens to earn higher wages as care home attendants because migrant competitors are taken out of the equation? Are you saying that Raducanu is depressing the wages of our other, native US Open winners?
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
Hope the new term is going as smoothly as can be expected. Fucking chaos where I am with all these LFTs but it's nice to have my classroom back.
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
I'm not talking migration in general - whoever said that we should allow unqualified people to teach? Oh yeah - the Tories when they created Free Schools...
Anyway, I am saying that if you are an economic migrant then you are in favour of economic migration. Yet we have economic migrants arguing that others shouldn't be allowed to do what they have done.
You can't be against something you personally have done without being a hypocrite.
I’m not against Physics teaching: I just don’t think it is a right that anybody should be able to do it. In the same way being an economic migrant is not a right, but that doesn’t mean it is not something that some people are allowed to do.
I’m curious: are you actually arguing that anybody in the world should be free to go anywhere they like and get a job if they can? I think it is a libertarian idea. It only really works if there is no welfare state and you are relaxed about seeing those who don’t have the right skills to make it starve in the street, but each to their own.
I think that is a mistake. Not a mistake like renewing Cressida Dick's appointment, which made me sick to my stomach, but a mistake. We need to build defences that can operate short of lockdowns if England follows the same trend as Scotland did once the schools went back. The ability to control the congregation of people with vaccine passports is an obvious intermediate step. We will not have that in our armoury. Mistake.
FWIW Labour is requiring all delegates to the conference to show evidence of double vaccination or have an immediate test. Seems sensible to me. Labour conferences to me are like night-clubs to MaxPB - I love them. However, I would prefer not to get Covid, and if someone with Covid wants to attend they can piss right off. Surely most crowded venues will feel the same?
Exactly so Nick. I suspect that private venues will effectively bring in Covid passports anyway and the government is wrong not to facilitate this trend.
AFAIK the Scottish Government will be mandating them for certain venues/events, or am I wrong? It's only the English administration that seems to have backed down all of a sudden, is it not?
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
I don't know if it was intentional, but if it was I like the idea of someone who is comfortable with multiple identities. I think it's healthy on many levels that she might feel she can do this while clearly also being very proud of being British. If that is bonkers, so be it!
You’re wishing that she was doing it, that’s what’s barking. I don’t care what she wears to be honest.
Nor do I. But it is true that I am drawn to the idea of people being comfortable with multiple identities and think it reflects well on places where they feel they can express these. As I say, if that is barking so be it!
No, it’s not barking to think that, that’s not what I’m criticising. It’s the fact that you saw her outfit and thought she’s wearing those colours for that reason.
Clearly you do not understand the phrase "I don't know if it was intentional".
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
I don't know if it was intentional, but if it was I like the idea of someone who is comfortable with multiple identities. I think it's healthy on many levels that she might feel she can do this while clearly also being very proud of being British. If that is bonkers, so be it!
You’re wishing that she was doing it, that’s what’s barking. I don’t care what she wears to be honest.
Nor do I. But it is true that I am drawn to the idea of people being comfortable with multiple identities and think it reflects well on places where they feel they can express these. As I say, if that is barking so be it!
Well, my father was Welsh, and I was taught, although living in Essex, to identify as Welsh. And if there's a choice, I do. Although if it comes to cricket then it's Essex and at national level England (yes I know it's the England-and-Wales Board team). Otherwise I say I'm British. On a supra national level, I'm a European. Or was until some idiot with a bus stole that identification. I've also had a DNA test done to 'establish' my ancestry and I'm (alleged) to be about 15% Swedish. AToW I've no idea where that comes from.
Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Many with dementia will live long enough to breach £86k. Easily. Over five years, maybe over ten, will not be unusual. £86k is 18 months of costs.
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
I think that is a mistake. Not a mistake like renewing Cressida Dick's appointment, which made me sick to my stomach, but a mistake. We need to build defences that can operate short of lockdowns if England follows the same trend as Scotland did once the schools went back. The ability to control the congregation of people with vaccine passports is an obvious intermediate step. We will not have that in our armoury. Mistake.
FWIW Labour is requiring all delegates to the conference to show evidence of double vaccination or have an immediate test. Seems sensible to me. Labour conferences to me are like night-clubs to MaxPB - I love them. However, I would prefer not to get Covid, and if someone with Covid wants to attend they can piss right off. Surely most crowded venues will feel the same?
Exactly so Nick. I suspect that private venues will effectively bring in Covid passports anyway and the government is wrong not to facilitate this trend.
It hardly needs facilitating, it's as easy as it reasonably could be to get the passport on the NHS app, and then it's a matter of freedom of association, but in a pro passport sense. There was nothing to stop the Peterloo protesters from deciding that nobody was allowed to come to the protest without producing the right bit of paper...
I think that is a mistake. Not a mistake like renewing Cressida Dick's appointment, which made me sick to my stomach, but a mistake. We need to build defences that can operate short of lockdowns if England follows the same trend as Scotland did once the schools went back. The ability to control the congregation of people with vaccine passports is an obvious intermediate step. We will not have that in our armoury. Mistake.
FWIW Labour is requiring all delegates to the conference to show evidence of double vaccination or have an immediate test. Seems sensible to me. Labour conferences to me are like night-clubs to MaxPB - I love them. However, I would prefer not to get Covid, and if someone with Covid wants to attend they can piss right off. Surely most crowded venues will feel the same?
Illogical.
If you are not double vaxxed then you are mainly putting yourself at risk.
Yes your viral load might be higher. Or it might not be if you are symptom free.
And as someone who is double vaxxed it would be reasonable to say that Covid for you would be similar to getting the flu.
I think that is a mistake. Not a mistake like renewing Cressida Dick's appointment, which made me sick to my stomach, but a mistake. We need to build defences that can operate short of lockdowns if England follows the same trend as Scotland did once the schools went back. The ability to control the congregation of people with vaccine passports is an obvious intermediate step. We will not have that in our armoury. Mistake.
FWIW Labour is requiring all delegates to the conference to show evidence of double vaccination or have an immediate test. Seems sensible to me. Labour conferences to me are like night-clubs to MaxPB - I love them. However, I would prefer not to get Covid, and if someone with Covid wants to attend they can piss right off. Surely most crowded venues will feel the same?
Exactly so Nick. I suspect that private venues will effectively bring in Covid passports anyway and the government is wrong not to facilitate this trend.
AFAIK the Scottish Government will be mandating them for certain venues/events, or am I wrong? It's only the English administration that seems to have backed down all of a sudden, is it not?
At the moment, yes. I very much hope that the Scottish government holds its nerve on this. We made a right mess of the system in the first place by producing only letters which many abroad would not accept. We now have QR codes and I have seen an App on someone's phone. I need to get this downloaded.
It will be fascinating to see how quickly the Tory invulnerability is swept away - if we are seeing the start of it.
So far they have been able to lie and break the law and have been practically applauded for doing so by the Cult of Boris. Yes its marvellous that he lied to the Queen etc.
So this week's lies - that the tax increase is to pay for social care, and that its progressive - shouldn't have been any concern. Tory voters like being lied to. And yet suddenly it appears they don't.
One possible angle. We saw the zeal for Brexit. That was seen as doing something to someone else - the man, the powers that be, the EU, the bureaucrats. Easy to support something that supposedly only hits Other People.
But this tax hike hits everyone. And the people who felt hard done by when we were in the EU get hard done the hardest. And thats before working families get scalped by the UC cut. And to cap it all off, they can't even see what benefit there is - the NHS will be on its knees again this winter and keep getting worse according to Javid.
Like I said, this is the Tories apocalpseofuck.
Interestingly - the reason it's not included within National insurance was because Rishi wanted it to be obvious on every payslip.
Which means if Labour gets its messaging right on every payslip there is a deduction to allow the Southern pensioners to keep their home
I get the rationale. Its not a tax rise, its a "Social Care Levy". Same as the "Adult Social Care Levy" 2% on your council tax.
The problem is that people see straight through it. With council tax the complaint is why am I having to pay for something someone else needs (direct repeated horse's mouth quotes from the doorstep before anyone picks at it).
So why would this NI levy be any different? Its a tax. Explicitly called out and supposedly hypothecated. With the money openly wasted.
BTW, southern pensioners DO NOT keep their home. The iniquity of social care was that people have to liquidate their kids inheritance to pay for their own care. They still need to pay £86k - which means selling their home. "Ah but not when they are alive" I heard some clown apologist say on here.
Yes, so after they die the house gets sold to pay for their care. No inheritance.
Its literally the apocalypseofuck. A massive tax rise. On the hardest working (which in punter land is "me"). To fix something that isn't fixed in 3 years. To patch the NHS before then so where the fuck is the Brexit money.
Rishi needs to get his brilliant spin machine on it. Boris produced the plan. Its his team not mine. I warned him not to. Or he goes down with the clown.
It is a tax rise. Of course it is - how can tackling social care not be a tax rise.
There seems to be some confusion as to the position of the home when someone permanently goes to a care home.
The house is either completely in or completely out of the assessment.
These are the main circumstances that prevent the home being brought into the finance assessment, under CURRENT rules:
- It is it's still occupied by spouse - it is still occupied by a relative (typically child) who is over 60 - it is still occupied by any relative who is disabled (of any age) - the first 12 weeks' care home costs are always disregarded
To repeat - these are the rules now.
The change - and it is a big change - that is coming Autumn 2023 is the £86k cap. This means that even when the property is brought into the assessment the maximum that can be taken of its value (in combination with other asset and income contributions to care) is £86k.
So where you say: "So why would this NI levy be any different? Its a tax. Explicitly called out and supposedly hypothecated. With the money openly wasted" what do you mean? Money is clearly going to be needed to cover care home hosts when the £86k cap is reached. Are you suggesting that the Autumn 2023 date will not be adhered to? You must be or your comment makes no sense.
An excellent explanation and some need to learn the detail before commenting
I don't think we have the detail to read as yet. As Stocky says, the current rules are as he describes. Whether the new rules will be identical except for the £86K cap is not yet clear.
You've made the point a couple of times that Labour's line te help people not go into care is unrealistic. But this too partly comes down to money. If councils are financed well enough to provide really extensive home care, beyond what is currently offered, then people will be able to delay or even sometimes avoid the necessity. There are plenty of examples of people who felt that having someone pop in for 20 minutes twice a day for minimal care was, although appreciated, just not a safe lifestyle. Clearly care homes will still be needed, but it does make sense to spend more on enabling people not to need them until it's really essential.
You are right, we don't know whether current exemptions will apply - but I assume they will.
What is explicitly stated is:
- the upper capital limit will rise from £23,250 to £100,000. The current rules lead to the impression that those with below £23,250 in assets contribute nothing towards care costs. This is untrue. You have posted about your uncle and said that he has all fees paid by the authorities. With respect I don't think this is correct. Under current rules the council seek reimbursement of part of the cost from the person's income. The oldie is only allowed to retain £24.90 pw (the Personal Expenses Allowance(PEA)) of income. Any income above this, including state pensions and any other income, is taken by the council. This is the case even for people with assets of £0. Under the new rules: 1) the £24.90 pw PEA, which has been frozen for years, will be upgraded by inflation and 2) once the £86k cap is reached the council will not be allowed to confiscate another penny of income. (See point 43 of the proposals.) This is a biggy. It means that the person in the care home will have all fees paid for AND will start to amass wealth from income that the state cannot touch for a contribution towards the costs.
- Self-funders (i.e. those above £100k assessable assets) can insist that the council arranges the care home contract and fees thus removing the disparity between self-funds and council discounts. (See point 40 of the proposals.) This is a significant move as well, though the levelling will likely settle at a mid-point I suspect - resulting in higher costs out of general taxation.
We can see that these proposals move liability in various ways from the individual to the state. This is what fixing social care means. Agree or disagree - I can see both sides.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
I don't know if it was intentional, but if it was I like the idea of someone who is comfortable with multiple identities. I think it's healthy on many levels that she might feel she can do this while clearly also being very proud of being British. If that is bonkers, so be it!
You’re wishing that she was doing it, that’s what’s barking. I don’t care what she wears to be honest.
Nor do I. But it is true that I am drawn to the idea of people being comfortable with multiple identities and think it reflects well on places where they feel they can express these. As I say, if that is barking so be it!
Radders (sorry, last time I will use that abomination) seems to have quite a nuanced and healthy attitude to identity, she has the tag london|toronto|shenyang|bucharest on her twitter account. I wonder idly if she's entitled to an EU passport?
It will be fascinating to see how quickly the Tory invulnerability is swept away - if we are seeing the start of it.
So far they have been able to lie and break the law and have been practically applauded for doing so by the Cult of Boris. Yes its marvellous that he lied to the Queen etc.
So this week's lies - that the tax increase is to pay for social care, and that its progressive - shouldn't have been any concern. Tory voters like being lied to. And yet suddenly it appears they don't.
One possible angle. We saw the zeal for Brexit. That was seen as doing something to someone else - the man, the powers that be, the EU, the bureaucrats. Easy to support something that supposedly only hits Other People.
But this tax hike hits everyone. And the people who felt hard done by when we were in the EU get hard done the hardest. And thats before working families get scalped by the UC cut. And to cap it all off, they can't even see what benefit there is - the NHS will be on its knees again this winter and keep getting worse according to Javid.
Like I said, this is the Tories apocalpseofuck.
Interestingly - the reason it's not included within National insurance was because Rishi wanted it to be obvious on every payslip.
Which means if Labour gets its messaging right on every payslip there is a deduction to allow the Southern pensioners to keep their home
I get the rationale. Its not a tax rise, its a "Social Care Levy". Same as the "Adult Social Care Levy" 2% on your council tax.
The problem is that people see straight through it. With council tax the complaint is why am I having to pay for something someone else needs (direct repeated horse's mouth quotes from the doorstep before anyone picks at it).
So why would this NI levy be any different? Its a tax. Explicitly called out and supposedly hypothecated. With the money openly wasted.
BTW, southern pensioners DO NOT keep their home. The iniquity of social care was that people have to liquidate their kids inheritance to pay for their own care. They still need to pay £86k - which means selling their home. "Ah but not when they are alive" I heard some clown apologist say on here.
Yes, so after they die the house gets sold to pay for their care. No inheritance.
Its literally the apocalypseofuck. A massive tax rise. On the hardest working (which in punter land is "me"). To fix something that isn't fixed in 3 years. To patch the NHS before then so where the fuck is the Brexit money.
Rishi needs to get his brilliant spin machine on it. Boris produced the plan. Its his team not mine. I warned him not to. Or he goes down with the clown.
It is a tax rise. Of course it is - how can tackling social care not be a tax rise.
There seems to be some confusion as to the position of the home when someone permanently goes to a care home.
The house is either completely in or completely out of the assessment.
These are the main circumstances that prevent the home being brought into the finance assessment, under CURRENT rules:
- It is it's still occupied by spouse - it is still occupied by a relative (typically child) who is over 60 - it is still occupied by any relative who is disabled (of any age) - the first 12 weeks' care home costs are always disregarded
To repeat - these are the rules now.
The change - and it is a big change - that is coming Autumn 2023 is the £86k cap. This means that even when the property is brought into the assessment the maximum that can be taken of its value (in combination with other asset and income contributions to care) is £86k.
So where you say: "So why would this NI levy be any different? Its a tax. Explicitly called out and supposedly hypothecated. With the money openly wasted" what do you mean? Money is clearly going to be needed to cover care home hosts when the £86k cap is reached. Are you suggesting that the Autumn 2023 date will not be adhered to? You must be or your comment makes no sense.
An excellent explanation and some need to learn the detail before commenting
I don't think we have the detail to read as yet. As Stocky says, the current rules are as he describes. Whether the new rules will be identical except for the £86K cap is not yet clear.
You've made the point a couple of times that Labour's line te help people not go into care is unrealistic. But this too partly comes down to money. If councils are financed well enough to provide really extensive home care, beyond what is currently offered, then people will be able to delay or even sometimes avoid the necessity. There are plenty of examples of people who felt that having someone pop in for 20 minutes twice a day for minimal care was, although appreciated, just not a safe lifestyle. Clearly care homes will still be needed, but it does make sense to spend more on enabling people not to need them until it's really essential.
I think there are many more elderly people who are struggling, but who actually really do need to be in a good care home.
They are reluctant to go into one -- for many & various reasons.
Some people are struggling, and not just elderly ones. We are, in this discussion, forgetting younger people, with, for example, something like MND. Then these's the issue of the 'good' care home; one in which, IMHO, anyway, the resident is given space to be themselves. For example, and this will happen increasingly often I suspect, I had a virtual friend who was one several chat boards. He didn't want to go into the residents lounge as he reported was frequently suggested to him; he was quite happy reading and posting with people who, virtually, had become his friends. But, as mentioned before, someone popping in for 20 minutes doesn't constitute either a safe, or a desirable, system.
There come a point when the cheapest way to provide the services is communally -- through a good care home.
If you need to provide an elderly person with hot meals, help with washing and showering, help with incontinence -- then it is easier to provide those facilities communally than having lots of individual carers race from home to home at 9.00 am or 1.00 pm to help people individually.
It is easier, and in the end cheaper.
We educate children communally, rather than have lots of individual teachers racing from home to home to provide personal tuition.
Most people don't want to go into a care home because they think it is grim. But, as Nick Palmer's relative found out, it can be like a country hotel.
In retrospect, my mother spend two unhappy years in sheltered accommodation, largely on her own -- with help from carers popping in two or three times day (as well as her family at weekend). She refused to go into a care home.
In fact, she was much happier in her care home where she had more companionship, there was much more structure to the day with a range of activities organised and she was really well looked after. She was in a very good care home.
Care homes have proper facilities to help with washing, eating and incontinence.
I am not sure --- even if you just have the narrow view that you want to save money -- the best thing to do is provide all these services individually in people's homes.
Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Another aspect is exactly how the second stage will work. The Government says it will give much more money to the NHS to address the waiting list problem. Fine. The NHS takes on more staff, and waiting lists are reduced. The issue will not go away, as the Health Minister says, but let's say that in 2024 the Government says "Job done, waiting lists are now acceptably low. Now for social care!" Money is moved across from the NHS to social care. Do they then sack the staff they took on to address the waiting lists? Won't the waiting lists then rise again? How will that work?
I think that there is enough churn in the NHS to resolve these problems but what is important is that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past by having wards fill up with bed blockers who cannot be released from hospital because adequate care packages are simply not available. Spending on SC will reduce the pressure on the NHS and will result in care being provided in considerably less expensive environments than a hospital ward. The government is absolutely right to seize this nettle.
But they are not seizing this nettle. You keep saying they have fixed it - are you following a completely different set of announcements to the rest of us?
You are 100% right about the bed blocking problem. That needs fixing NOW. Doing so would be seizing the thistle. But they are not. The proposal is money in 2 years time. Not enough money to fix the issue, which has to be cut from the NHS. Which we both know won't happen.
No money now despite the massive need. Jam promised tomorrow. Knowing there will be no jam. And you call this seizing the nettle?
It'll be interesting to see what happens as the result of the current review in Scotland (initiated well before this NI business). And in Wales. Though there is not much they can do about NI - not a devolved matter.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
Well you highlighted it apropos nothing and your follow up sentence was about her parents immigrating to the UK
I assume you were trolling and feeling morally superior about being a better person than others rather than actually believing it though
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
I don't know if it was intentional, but if it was I like the idea of someone who is comfortable with multiple identities. I think it's healthy on many levels that she might feel she can do this while clearly also being very proud of being British. If that is bonkers, so be it!
You’re wishing that she was doing it, that’s what’s barking. I don’t care what she wears to be honest.
Nor do I. But it is true that I am drawn to the idea of people being comfortable with multiple identities and think it reflects well on places where they feel they can express these. As I say, if that is barking so be it!
No, it’s not barking to think that, that’s not what I’m criticising. It’s the fact that you saw her outfit and thought she’s wearing those colours for that reason.
Clearly you do not understand the phrase "I don't know if it was intentional".
But it says so much about you that it crossed your mind. If it was a nod to Romania, I hope the people of that country appreciated it, but I suspect it would have gone over most people’s heads.
Anyway. The tennis was fantastic. As was @kinabalu's tip/bet.
Best sporting moment? Nationally (ie not my own extremely modest sporting experiences) OGS's goal in 1999 was an amazing moment. And I'm far from a Reds fan.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
I don't know if it was intentional, but if it was I like the idea of someone who is comfortable with multiple identities. I think it's healthy on many levels that she might feel she can do this while clearly also being very proud of being British. If that is bonkers, so be it!
You’re wishing that she was doing it, that’s what’s barking. I don’t care what she wears to be honest.
Nor do I. But it is true that I am drawn to the idea of people being comfortable with multiple identities and think it reflects well on places where they feel they can express these. As I say, if that is barking so be it!
Well, my father was Welsh, and I was taught, although living in Essex, to identify as Welsh. And if there's a choice, I do. Although if it comes to cricket then it's Essex and at national level England (yes I know it's the England-and-Wales Board team). Otherwise I say I'm British. On a supra national level, I'm a European. Or was until some idiot with a bus stole that identification. I've also had a DNA test done to 'establish' my ancestry and I'm (alleged) to be about 15% Swedish. AToW I've no idea where that comes from.
In England I mostly feel a Londoner. In the rest of the UK, in Ireland and in the Commonwealth it's English - and that's the same in Western and Northern Europe, though not behind the old Iron Curtain. In Asia, outside the Commonwealth, I am generally British, as I am in Latin America. In the US, uniquely, I feel European. I have never been to Africa so can't comment on that!
Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Many with dementia will live long enough to breach £86k. Easily. Over five years, maybe over ten, will not be unusual. £86k is 18 months of costs.
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
One of the things I am unclear about will be what happens to your care package when you have reached your cap. Suppose, for example, that you had been paying a bit extra to get meals delivered that were actually tasty but cost a bit more. Or for a physiotherapist to pop by once a week to keep you moving. When you reach the cap will your current package continue or will you be reassessed back to the State level (which even with extra money is likely to be poorer)? My guess would be yes.
Edit, also if you choose to buy "extras" do these count towards your cap? We may find that the real cap is somewhat higher.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
I've heard that Raducanu came to this country from France in a boat across the Channel, with her parents.
Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Many with dementia will live long enough to breach £86k. Easily. Over five years, maybe over ten, will not be unusual. £86k is 18 months of costs.
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
The one thing this will do is provide insurers with an opportunity to design insurance policies which may well be affordable
Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Many with dementia will live long enough to breach £86k. Easily. Over five years, maybe over ten, will not be unusual. £86k is 18 months of costs.
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
The 86k is catastrophe insurance. Most people will not benefit from it.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
I'm not talking migration in general - whoever said that we should allow unqualified people to teach? Oh yeah - the Tories when they created Free Schools...
Anyway, I am saying that if you are an economic migrant then you are in favour of economic migration. Yet we have economic migrants arguing that others shouldn't be allowed to do what they have done.
You can't be against something you personally have done without being a hypocrite.
Depends rather, doesn't it? Can we not, frinstance, distinguish net contributors to from net takers from the economy? People with skills we lack vs those with skills we have coming out of our ears?
As migration provides a clear and defined net benefit to the economy you'd have to debate it not with economics. Perhaps we could debate it with jobs - do we miss the forrin who have now departed industries like logistics and food and care?
Anyway. The tennis was fantastic. As was @kinabalu's tip/bet.
Best sporting moment? Nationally (ie not my own extremely modest sporting experiences) OGS's goal in 1999 was an amazing moment. And I'm far from a Reds fan.
Ben Stokes' innings at Headingly for me, with being at Dens Park when Dundee United won the league for the first and only time a close second.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Most of her dress is red and blue. The only yellow is in her quite separate cap, so it's fairly marginal anyway. It's not in your face at all.
You're forgetting to mix the Romanian flag with the Chinese flag. If you then add in Canada and subtract the butcher's apron, I'm pretty sure you get left with exactly her outfit.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Most of her dress is red and blue. The only yellow is in her quite separate cap, so it's fairly marginal anyway. It's not in your face at all.
I was wondering how much Nike paid her to wear that cap. A phone call the night before "we'll pay £XXX,000" probably. Had she been wearing it previously? I saw the semi but headwear didn't register.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
Well you highlighted it apropos nothing and your follow up sentence was about her parents immigrating to the UK
I assume you were trolling and feeling morally superior about being a better person than others rather than actually believing it though
That's a very morally superior post, Charles. Made on the playing field of Eton, I suspect. Just so I understand, are you saying I feel morally superior to others even though I do not believe that I am? If I was as clever as you I would not need that explaining, of course, but as I am not I do. Cheers!
I think that is a mistake. Not a mistake like renewing Cressida Dick's appointment, which made me sick to my stomach, but a mistake. We need to build defences that can operate short of lockdowns if England follows the same trend as Scotland did once the schools went back. The ability to control the congregation of people with vaccine passports is an obvious intermediate step. We will not have that in our armoury. Mistake.
FWIW Labour is requiring all delegates to the conference to show evidence of double vaccination or have an immediate test. Seems sensible to me. Labour conferences to me are like night-clubs to MaxPB - I love them. However, I would prefer not to get Covid, and if someone with Covid wants to attend they can piss right off. Surely most crowded venues will feel the same?
Exactly so Nick. I suspect that private venues will effectively bring in Covid passports anyway and the government is wrong not to facilitate this trend.
AFAIK the Scottish Government will be mandating them for certain venues/events, or am I wrong? It's only the English administration that seems to have backed down all of a sudden, is it not?
At the moment, yes. I very much hope that the Scottish government holds its nerve on this. We made a right mess of the system in the first place by producing only letters which many abroad would not accept. We now have QR codes and I have seen an App on someone's phone. I need to get this downloaded.
I do hope so too. Slightly odd that the Scottish Tories were protesting about a policy which was Conservative policy south of the border. But that inconsistency evaporated between Mr Javid's two interviews this morning. Labour IIRC were also protesting but they do operate under the Bain Principle anyway.
Some people are struggling, and not just elderly ones. We are, in this discussion, forgetting younger people, with, for example, something like MND. Then these's the issue of the 'good' care home; one in which, IMHO, anyway, the resident is given space to be themselves. For example, and this will happen increasingly often I suspect, I had a virtual friend who was one several chat boards. He didn't want to go into the residents lounge as he reported was frequently suggested to him; he was quite happy reading and posting with people who, virtually, had become his friends. But, as mentioned before, someone popping in for 20 minutes doesn't constitute either a safe, or a desirable, system.
Interesting point about having space to oneself. I like going out to socialise with friends, but it's not crucial. I've spent most of the last 18 months in my 1-bedroom home with two jobs and lots of banter on PB and elsewhere, and I'm perfectly content. If I need a care home one day, I'll be fine if it's got good wifi. I'm not at all against people getting together and playing Monopoly in the lounge and might do it sometimes for a change, but any kind of pressure to join in, no thanks.
Not everyone feels like that, but a good care home will respect people's preferences and try to offer both options.
I'm not talking about the middle of the last century. I'm talking this year. People wanted forrin to go home. They voted for brexit to have them go home. They're celebrating the forrin going away - and Romanian migrants are the literal bogeymen. And now celebrate a Romanian migrant as one of their own.
Perhaps the forrin are only ok when they grow up to speak with the tennis accent and win for their adopted country? Less so when they clean up your mother's piss in a care home.
There's quite a gap between "wanted forrin to go home" (is there anyone here that you think has that view?) and "wanted some immigration control". You appear to ludicrously treat those two positions as exactly the same.
On here? No. Out there? Yes, lots. Met a lot on the doorstep including some truly deluded people complaining about how there are too many immigrants in their almost entirely white "largest village in England"
Not sure what immigration control we have now won that we didn't have before. We have the right to remove people who don't contribute economically but we had that right in the EU. We have the right not to staff the border properly so we can't do basic checks and so that people queue for hours at Heathrow. Again nothing new there.
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
Hope the new term is going as smoothly as can be expected. Fucking chaos where I am with all these LFTs but it's nice to have my classroom back.
A poor start fo me personally: I was ill at the beginning of term and missed three days lying in bed feeling sorry for myself. Trying to set cover for a class you haven’t seen yet when you have a high temperature and a headache and all your notes are at school is not something I would recommend.
Ouch. Sympathies.
I also had a fairly heavy cold, but I was in luck - the day it was at its worst none of my classes were in as they hadn't had their second tests. So I could sit peacefully in the classroom a long way from everyone else rather than wrestling with teaching or cover.
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
I'm not talking migration in general - whoever said that we should allow unqualified people to teach? Oh yeah - the Tories when they created Free Schools...
Anyway, I am saying that if you are an economic migrant then you are in favour of economic migration. Yet we have economic migrants arguing that others shouldn't be allowed to do what they have done.
You can't be against something you personally have done without being a hypocrite.
Depends rather, doesn't it? Can we not, frinstance, distinguish net contributors to from net takers from the economy? People with skills we lack vs those with skills we have coming out of our ears?
As migration provides a clear and defined net benefit to the economy you'd have to debate it not with economics. Perhaps we could debate it with jobs - do we miss the forrin who have now departed industries like logistics and food and care?
Perhaps if we had had a debate on it and got the public buy in we wouldn’t have the farce of both new labour and Cameron’s Tories talking tough on migration while running a near open door. It wouldn’t be an issue. Still that requires one principles and courage, We could also have created the jobs and industries to put the required infrastructure in place to support it.
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
I'm not talking migration in general - whoever said that we should allow unqualified people to teach? Oh yeah - the Tories when they created Free Schools...
Anyway, I am saying that if you are an economic migrant then you are in favour of economic migration. Yet we have economic migrants arguing that others shouldn't be allowed to do what they have done.
You can't be against something you personally have done without being a hypocrite.
Depends rather, doesn't it? Can we not, frinstance, distinguish net contributors to from net takers from the economy? People with skills we lack vs those with skills we have coming out of our ears?
As migration provides a clear and defined net benefit to the economy you'd have to debate it not with economics. Perhaps we could debate it with jobs - do we miss the forrin who have now departed industries like logistics and food and care?
Again, you a seem to be saying that migration is a unique thing where some is good so more must be better.
At what level is migration “a clear and defined net benefit to the economy”?
Anyway. The tennis was fantastic. As was @kinabalu's tip/bet.
Best sporting moment? Nationally (ie not my own extremely modest sporting experiences) OGS's goal in 1999 was an amazing moment. And I'm far from a Reds fan.
Ben Stokes' innings at Headingly for me, with being at Dens Park when Dundee United won the league for the first and only time a close second.
Is there really a debate on here on whether someone born overseas can be British? Goodness me.
And it’s people on the “left” questioning it while those on the “right” are going ‘of course, why are you even asking?’
Who is questioning it, Charles? I am sure you are not implying that I believe that someone born overseas cannot be British, so can you point out who is saying that?
I think that is a mistake. Not a mistake like renewing Cressida Dick's appointment, which made me sick to my stomach, but a mistake. We need to build defences that can operate short of lockdowns if England follows the same trend as Scotland did once the schools went back. The ability to control the congregation of people with vaccine passports is an obvious intermediate step. We will not have that in our armoury. Mistake.
FWIW Labour is requiring all delegates to the conference to show evidence of double vaccination or have an immediate test. Seems sensible to me. Labour conferences to me are like night-clubs to MaxPB - I love them. However, I would prefer not to get Covid, and if someone with Covid wants to attend they can piss right off. Surely most crowded venues will feel the same?
Exactly so Nick. I suspect that private venues will effectively bring in Covid passports anyway and the government is wrong not to facilitate this trend.
AFAIK the Scottish Government will be mandating them for certain venues/events, or am I wrong? It's only the English administration that seems to have backed down all of a sudden, is it not?
At the moment, yes. I very much hope that the Scottish government holds its nerve on this. We made a right mess of the system in the first place by producing only letters which many abroad would not accept. We now have QR codes and I have seen an App on someone's phone. I need to get this downloaded.
I do hope so too. Slightly odd that the Scottish Tories were protesting about a policy which was Conservative policy south of the border. But that inconsistency evaporated between Mr Javid's two interviews this morning. Labour IIRC were also protesting but they do operate under the Bain Principle anyway.
Presumably the Scottish Tories had had a tip about which way the wind was blowing but I disagree with their stance.
Anyway. The tennis was fantastic. As was @kinabalu's tip/bet.
Best sporting moment? Nationally (ie not my own extremely modest sporting experiences) OGS's goal in 1999 was an amazing moment. And I'm far from a Reds fan.
This year for me the Fijians winning Olympic gold. The passion and the raw emotion, coupled with what they went through to get there, astonishing resilience.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Most of her dress is red and blue. The only yellow is in her quite separate cap, so it's fairly marginal anyway. It's not in your face at all.
You're forgetting to mix the Romanian flag with the Chinese flag. If you then add in Canada and subtract the butcher's apron, I'm pretty sure you get left with exactly her outfit.
Heaven forfend! PRC = red and yellow Romania = r, y and blue Canada = white and r MINUS UK = r, w, b ========== yellow alone
Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Many with dementia will live long enough to breach £86k. Easily. Over five years, maybe over ten, will not be unusual. £86k is 18 months of costs.
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
The 86k is catastrophe insurance. Most people will not benefit from it.
That's what I have been saying. The cost is in providing packages to those who don't have money but the government has managed to make it look like they are taxing the working poor to benefit the retired rich. It's poor politics.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
I don't know if it was intentional, but if it was I like the idea of someone who is comfortable with multiple identities. I think it's healthy on many levels that she might feel she can do this while clearly also being very proud of being British. If that is bonkers, so be it!
You’re wishing that she was doing it, that’s what’s barking. I don’t care what she wears to be honest.
Nor do I. But it is true that I am drawn to the idea of people being comfortable with multiple identities and think it reflects well on places where they feel they can express these. As I say, if that is barking so be it!
No, it’s not barking to think that, that’s not what I’m criticising. It’s the fact that you saw her outfit and thought she’s wearing those colours for that reason.
Clearly you do not understand the phrase "I don't know if it was intentional".
But it says so much about you that it crossed your mind. If it was a nod to Romania, I hope the people of that country appreciated it, but I suspect it would have gone over most people’s heads.
It says that I know the colours of the Romanian flag. Your desire to draw what seem to be quite deep-seated conclusions about my beliefs, motivations and personality from a throwaway two line post on an internet message board says quite a lot about you, IMO. So there we go!
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
Anyway. The tennis was fantastic. As was @kinabalu's tip/bet.
Best sporting moment? Nationally (ie not my own extremely modest sporting experiences) OGS's goal in 1999 was an amazing moment. And I'm far from a Reds fan.
‘Like an enormous yes’ as Larkin put it. I’d agree - also as a non Man U supporter - about OGS. Also as mentioned about Stokes Headingley 2019, Usain Bolt Beijing 2008. But no qualifier had ever (with the possible technical exception of Ivanisovic - also something of a ‘yes’ moment) made it to the final of a slam - and then to win it without having dropped a set all tournament. Absolutely unsurpassable, I’d think.
I'm not talking about the middle of the last century. I'm talking this year. People wanted forrin to go home. They voted for brexit to have them go home. They're celebrating the forrin going away - and Romanian migrants are the literal bogeymen. And now celebrate a Romanian migrant as one of their own.
Perhaps the forrin are only ok when they grow up to speak with the tennis accent and win for their adopted country? Less so when they clean up your mother's piss in a care home.
There's quite a gap between "wanted forrin to go home" (is there anyone here that you think has that view?) and "wanted some immigration control". You appear to ludicrously treat those two positions as exactly the same.
On here? No. Out there? Yes, lots. Met a lot on the doorstep including some truly deluded people complaining about how there are too many immigrants in their almost entirely white "largest village in England"
Not sure what immigration control we have now won that we didn't have before. We have the right to remove people who don't contribute economically but we had that right in the EU. We have the right not to staff the border properly so we can't do basic checks and so that people queue for hours at Heathrow. Again nothing new there.
The problem is you extract meeting some bigots and then make it sound like most English are the same
It is frankly insulting to the vast majority of the English who are just as generous as the Scots or Welsh
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
Anyway. The tennis was fantastic. As was @kinabalu's tip/bet.
Best sporting moment? Nationally (ie not my own extremely modest sporting experiences) OGS's goal in 1999 was an amazing moment. And I'm far from a Reds fan.
Thanks, Captain. And tbf I must share that with @ThomasNashe who did similar from the Spoty angle.
But, c'mon, the one I'm most pleased about right now - on this morning of all mornings, as per the Saj on Marr - is that 'vaccine passports' for domestic use in England turn out to be, as yours truly has been saying till blue of face and red of nose, rhetoric only and thus a Not Happening Event.
But (yes @noneoftheabove) I would trade absolutely everything in, every single good call or bet I've ever made, to be right about what it looks like I'm probably going to be wrong about - the wretched ghastly abysmal 'lower than a snake's belly' Donald Trump really does appear to have the GOP nomination at his mercy and thus a serious shot at returning to the White House. Oh god. Say it aint so, Joe.
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
I'm not talking migration in general - whoever said that we should allow unqualified people to teach? Oh yeah - the Tories when they created Free Schools...
Anyway, I am saying that if you are an economic migrant then you are in favour of economic migration. Yet we have economic migrants arguing that others shouldn't be allowed to do what they have done.
You can't be against something you personally have done without being a hypocrite.
I’m not against Physics teaching: I just don’t think it is a right that anybody should be able to do it. In the same way being an economic migrant is not a right, but that doesn’t mean it is not something that some people are allowed to do.
I’m curious: are you actually arguing that anybody in the world should be free to go anywhere they like and get a job if they can? I think it is a libertarian idea. It only really works if there is no welfare state and you are relaxed about seeing those who don’t have the right skills to make it starve in the street, but each to their own.
No I don't think that and I'm not sure how you infer that from my posts. Let me go back a few steps. I think that rules should be applied evenly, that logic should be applied equally. I get seriously bemused when people change the rules to suit themselves.
My economic migrant argument came with an example of economic migrants in Spain being against economic arguments in the UK. Saying that its wrong for people to move to a country and be a burden on it whilst not integrating - the exact thing they were doing in Spain.
So I am not remotely arguing that being an economic migrant is a right. Just that if you are in favour of economic migration when it comes to you going somewhere else from Britain, it is illogical to deny the same right in reverse.
Final point. The kids of migrants tend to be a real point of anger for many people. It isn't just the migrant thats the problem its that they bring their family. Well this child migrant went on to become a tennis player. We have no idea what skills we will gain through migration.
There was a graphic during the Euros showing that almost the entire England squad were recent (1st/2nd generation) migrants. So we like migrants if they play football or tennis but not if they don't. But how can we find out what they can do if they can't come here and grow up here?
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Edit - in previous years they've asked if I want to make one, and I've said no. But they're not really giving me that option here.
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
One year I got my tax code wrong. I owed a bunch of tax and then for the next year they wanted a payment on account as they obviously didn't trust me.
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Don't know. I have been doing that for the last 20 odd years. Have you maybe gone over some threshold?
I'm not talking about the middle of the last century. I'm talking this year. People wanted forrin to go home. They voted for brexit to have them go home. They're celebrating the forrin going away - and Romanian migrants are the literal bogeymen. And now celebrate a Romanian migrant as one of their own.
Perhaps the forrin are only ok when they grow up to speak with the tennis accent and win for their adopted country? Less so when they clean up your mother's piss in a care home.
There's quite a gap between "wanted forrin to go home" (is there anyone here that you think has that view?) and "wanted some immigration control". You appear to ludicrously treat those two positions as exactly the same.
On here? No. Out there? Yes, lots. Met a lot on the doorstep including some truly deluded people complaining about how there are too many immigrants in their almost entirely white "largest village in England"
Not sure what immigration control we have now won that we didn't have before. We have the right to remove people who don't contribute economically but we had that right in the EU. We have the right not to staff the border properly so we can't do basic checks and so that people queue for hours at Heathrow. Again nothing new there.
The problem is you extract meeting some bigots and then make it sound like most English are the same
It is frankly insulting to the vast majority of the English who are just as generous as the Scots or Welsh
You need to attain some balance
Impossible to get balance from the messianic.
His approach is no better than the people who use grooming gangs in Rotherham to assume all migrants are bad people.
But we don’t do balance in politics these days. It’s binary. You’re either 100% on board or part of the problem. It’s not just race. It’s the environment, the trans debate and many others
Anyway. The tennis was fantastic. As was @kinabalu's tip/bet.
Best sporting moment? Nationally (ie not my own extremely modest sporting experiences) OGS's goal in 1999 was an amazing moment. And I'm far from a Reds fan.
‘Like an enormous yes’ as Larkin put it. I’d agree - also as a non Man U supporter - about OGS. Also as mentioned about Stokes Headingley 2019, Usain Bolt Beijing 2008. But no qualifier had ever (with the possible technical exception of Ivanisovic - also something of a ‘yes’ moment) made it to the final of a slam - and then to win it without having dropped a set all tournament. Absolutely unsurpassable, I’d think.
Yes. I was just thinking of a particular "gotcha" or as you say "yes" moment.
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Don't know. I have been doing that for the last 20 odd years. Have you maybe gone over some threshold?
As I said in my edit, it's the change in approach that's puzzling me.
I'm wondering if it's an attempt to claw some more of next year's income into this year. They do after all need it badly.
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Edit - in previous years they've asked if I want to make one, and I've said no. But they're not really giving me that option here.
It goes back to when self-assessment came in I think. I'm s/e and have had to pay half year on account for at least 15 years, maybe 20. It applies when your NP goes above a certain level.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Most of her dress is red and blue. The only yellow is in her quite separate cap, so it's fairly marginal anyway. It's not in your face at all.
You're forgetting to mix the Romanian flag with the Chinese flag. If you then add in Canada and subtract the butcher's apron, I'm pretty sure you get left with exactly her outfit.
Heaven forfend! PRC = red and yellow Romania = r, y and blue Canada = white and r MINUS UK = r, w, b ========== yellow alone
taking UK R away from the R of China Canada and Romania leaves LOTS of R, and Romania has a bit more B than UK I think
What I want to know is what the hell she meant by wearing a sparkly black dress and white trainers to the dinner last night. I expect it's something pirate related.
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Edit - in previous years they've asked if I want to make one, and I've said no. But they're not really giving me that option here.
It goes back to when self-assessment came in I think. I'm s/e and have had to pay half year on account for at least 15 years, maybe 20. It applies when your NP goes above a certain level.
I suppose that might be it. Because come to think of it, my property income has been higher this year (due to buying out my sister who previously owned 50% of the house) and although my musical income has dropped to nothing my new job came with a very large pay rise.
Thanks to all who replied for the clarification. Slightly annoying, but I can still afford it so not a big problem!
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Most of her dress is red and blue. The only yellow is in her quite separate cap, so it's fairly marginal anyway. It's not in your face at all.
I was wondering how much Nike paid her to wear that cap. A phone call the night before "we'll pay £XXX,000" probably. Had she been wearing it previously? I saw the semi but headwear didn't register.
She had been wearing the cap since her first qualifying match.
Interesting side note Sabalenka wore the same dress in her semi final loss to Leyla
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Don't know. I have been doing that for the last 20 odd years. Have you maybe gone over some threshold?
As I said in my edit, it's the change in approach that's puzzling me.
I'm wondering if it's an attempt to claw some more of next year's income into this year. They do after all need it badly.
Given the state of the public finances I have some reservations about whether squeezing a bit more out of you is the answer @ydoethur. I don't think there has been a change. I do remember after I had been doing this for 7 years I switched to paying on what I had billed rather than what I had actually been paid. That wasn't great given the really weird fact that paying their advocate doesn't seem to be at the top of everyone's priority list.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Most of her dress is red and blue. The only yellow is in her quite separate cap, so it's fairly marginal anyway. It's not in your face at all.
I was wondering how much Nike paid her to wear that cap. A phone call the night before "we'll pay £XXX,000" probably. Had she been wearing it previously? I saw the semi but headwear didn't register.
She had been wearing the cap since her first qualifying match.
Interesting side note Sabalenka wore the same dress in her semi final loss to Leyla
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
I'm not talking migration in general - whoever said that we should allow unqualified people to teach? Oh yeah - the Tories when they created Free Schools...
Anyway, I am saying that if you are an economic migrant then you are in favour of economic migration. Yet we have economic migrants arguing that others shouldn't be allowed to do what they have done.
You can't be against something you personally have done without being a hypocrite.
I’m not against Physics teaching: I just don’t think it is a right that anybody should be able to do it. In the same way being an economic migrant is not a right, but that doesn’t mean it is not something that some people are allowed to do.
I’m curious: are you actually arguing that anybody in the world should be free to go anywhere they like and get a job if they can? I think it is a libertarian idea. It only really works if there is no welfare state and you are relaxed about seeing those who don’t have the right skills to make it starve in the street, but each to their own.
No I don't think that and I'm not sure how you infer that from my posts. Let me go back a few steps. I think that rules should be applied evenly, that logic should be applied equally. I get seriously bemused when people change the rules to suit themselves.
My economic migrant argument came with an example of economic migrants in Spain being against economic arguments in the UK. Saying that its wrong for people to move to a country and be a burden on it whilst not integrating - the exact thing they were doing in Spain.
So I am not remotely arguing that being an economic migrant is a right. Just that if you are in favour of economic migration when it comes to you going somewhere else from Britain, it is illogical to deny the same right in reverse.
Final point. The kids of migrants tend to be a real point of anger for many people. It isn't just the migrant thats the problem its that they bring their family. Well this child migrant went on to become a tennis player. We have no idea what skills we will gain through migration.
There was a graphic during the Euros showing that almost the entire England squad were recent (1st/2nd generation) migrants. So we like migrants if they play football or tennis but not if they don't. But how can we find out what they can do if they can't come here and grow up here?
I think the difference between us is this: - you think of “economic migration” as a single type of thing, something someone does because it will make their life better. You are looking at it from the point of view if the migrant. - I think that each case needs to be considered on its merits, that there is a difference between someone who goes to work in a country because they have badly needed skills and someone whose skills are already plentiful amongst those who live there. - You think migration is good and so more is better. - I think some migration is good, but like everything you can have to much of a good thing.
How close am I to paraphrasing your views? Or do you think they are caricatures?
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Don't know. I have been doing that for the last 20 odd years. Have you maybe gone over some threshold?
As I said in my edit, it's the change in approach that's puzzling me.
I'm wondering if it's an attempt to claw some more of next year's income into this year. They do after all need it badly.
Given the state of the public finances I have some reservations about whether squeezing a bit more out of you is the answer @ydoethur. I don't think there has been a change. I do remember after I had been doing this for 7 years I switched to paying on what I had billed rather than what I had actually been paid. That wasn't great given the really weird fact that paying their advocate doesn't seem to be at the top of everyone's priority list.
Can you sue for your fees in Scotland? I know there's a tradition that barristers can't sue for them in England (not sure whether it's still the rule).
This is going to be a problem: "the government confirmed to BBC News the daily living costs in a care home - those associated with food, energy bills and the accommodation - will not count towards the cap."
Salmond accuses Sturgeon of creating "Groundhog Scotland" and calls for an #indyref by October 2022. "Nicola has placed Scotland in a referendum time loop. Six years, and we're making no progress whatsoever. This is Groundhog Scotland, Groundhog referendum" @TimesRadio
Only a matter of time before even more voters join the dots and realize that not only has Brexit not done what it said on the bus it's actually made people's lives a hell of a lot worse and when looking where to target the blame there is one big fat blond buddha slap bang in the middle of the bullseye.
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Edit - in previous years they've asked if I want to make one, and I've said no. But they're not really giving me that option here.
It goes back to when self-assessment came in I think. I'm s/e and have had to pay half year on account for at least 15 years, maybe 20. It applies when your NP goes above a certain level.
I suppose that might be it. Because come to think of it, my property income has been higher this year (due to buying out my sister who previously owned 50% of the house) and although my musical income has dropped to nothing my new job came with a very large pay rise.
Thanks to all who replied for the clarification. Slightly annoying, but I can still afford it so not a big problem!
It's not costing you anything at the end of the day. When you cease self employment you will receive a cheque back!
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
For the self employed every January payment includes a payment to account for the following year (although given the ridiculous way our taxes work the following year can still be the year prior to when the payment is made).
So why, in 16 years of filling these things in, is this the first time I've had to make one?
Don't know. I have been doing that for the last 20 odd years. Have you maybe gone over some threshold?
As I said in my edit, it's the change in approach that's puzzling me.
I'm wondering if it's an attempt to claw some more of next year's income into this year. They do after all need it badly.
Given the state of the public finances I have some reservations about whether squeezing a bit more out of you is the answer @ydoethur. I don't think there has been a change. I do remember after I had been doing this for 7 years I switched to paying on what I had billed rather than what I had actually been paid. That wasn't great given the really weird fact that paying their advocate doesn't seem to be at the top of everyone's priority list.
Can you sue for your fees in Scotland? I know there's a tradition that barristers can't sue for them in England (not sure whether it's still the rule).
Legally, probably yes but in practice we don't. The solicitor who instructs us is personally responsible for the fees and failure to pay them can be a professional disciplinary matter. The biggest threat that the Faculty has is a letter from the Dean which withdraws credit rights. If that is sent any instruction must be accompanied by either a legal aid certificate or a cheque for an agreed amount. This is a right faff and most agents try very hard not to be on the naughty step.
The former Dean and then Lord Advocate, James Wolffe, convinced himself that there was a potential conflict between writing such letters and having to determine whether counsel had behaved badly in the event of a complaint. My suggestion to him that these letters was why we had a Dean didn't seem to go down as well as I might have hoped.
Whilst I think he was wrong about this it is a good example of how principled and honourable James Wolffe is. He's had a pretty raw deal from the Scottish establishment and political class.
Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Many with dementia will live long enough to breach £86k. Easily. Over five years, maybe over ten, will not be unusual. £86k is 18 months of costs.
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
More or less agree, but I note that that 86k is 3-4 years hence not now, so will be smaller than it looks or 90-93k ish.
I'm still not clear who will be paying for "hotel service" elements?
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
Well you highlighted it apropos nothing and your follow up sentence was about her parents immigrating to the UK
I assume you were trolling and feeling morally superior about being a better person than others rather than actually believing it though
That's a very morally superior post, Charles. Made on the playing field of Eton, I suspect. Just so I understand, are you saying I feel morally superior to others even though I do not believe that I am? If I was as clever as you I would not need that explaining, of course, but as I am not I do. Cheers!
No. I am saying that you posted something you didn’t believe because it reminded you that (in your estimation) others did believe it and therefore you were a better person.
Is there really a debate on here on whether someone born overseas can be British? Goodness me.
And it’s people on the “left” questioning it while those on the “right” are going ‘of course, why are you even asking?’
Who is questioning it, Charles? I am sure you are not implying that I believe that someone born overseas cannot be British, so can you point out who is saying that?
Notable that there do not seem to have been many soft-focus, Rishi-branded Tweets about the tax on the low paid to subsidise the wealthy he has signed off on.
It has been odd messaging so far, no doubt about it. This tax increase is going directly to the NHS initially and then is going to be used to fund SC for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The cost of having a life time limit of £86k of contributions will be a tiny part of the package. Most will not live long enough to get anywhere near that level and the few that do are likely to die very shortly afterwards.
But the government has allowed the meme of this being all about protecting wealthy pensioners to take a firm hold and it will be almost impossible to shift now. It is a curious error.
Many with dementia will live long enough to breach £86k. Easily. Over five years, maybe over ten, will not be unusual. £86k is 18 months of costs.
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
More or less agree, but I note that that 86k is 3-4 years hence not now, so will be smaller than it looks or 90-93k ish.
I'm still not clear who will be paying for "hotel service" elements?
What currently happens for those in Scotland?
They are means tested so the contributions of these rich pensioners will be considerably more than £86k. As I have said downthread there are also quite a number of potential issues as to what counts against your cap and what doesn't.
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
Well you highlighted it apropos nothing and your follow up sentence was about her parents immigrating to the UK
I assume you were trolling and feeling morally superior about being a better person than others rather than actually believing it though
That's a very morally superior post, Charles. Made on the playing field of Eton, I suspect. Just so I understand, are you saying I feel morally superior to others even though I do not believe that I am? If I was as clever as you I would not need that explaining, of course, but as I am not I do. Cheers!
No. I am saying that you posted something you didn’t believe because it reminded you that (in your estimation) others did believe it and therefore you were a better person.
Unfortunately, for you, no one bit
I now can't work out why I noticed she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. Am I morally superior or a racist?
This is going to be a problem: "the government confirmed to BBC News the daily living costs in a care home - those associated with food, energy bills and the accommodation - will not count towards the cap."
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
I thought the same as you when I saw the colours. I've read she's spent a lot of time in Romania and has a real connection with the place - apparently Simona Halep was/is her favourite player. I'd be surprised if she wasn't aware of the colours matching the Romanian flag, and hadn't thought of her grandmother when she picked the outfit.
Most of her dress is red and blue. The only yellow is in her quite separate cap, so it's fairly marginal anyway. It's not in your face at all.
You're forgetting to mix the Romanian flag with the Chinese flag. If you then add in Canada and subtract the butcher's apron, I'm pretty sure you get left with exactly her outfit.
Heaven forfend! PRC = red and yellow Romania = r, y and blue Canada = white and r MINUS UK = r, w, b ========== yellow alone
Coincidentally, or not, Raducanu was dressed in the colours of the Romanian flag last night. As for how her parents got to the UK - I thought the narrative was that Labour let anyone in.
Completely barking.
In what way, just out of interest?
That you looked at the colours she was wearing and thought “oh, those are the colours of the Romanian flag.”
Just imagine if someone on the far right pointed this out and said “see, she isn’t really British.”
It's something Asian people face all the time. We're never really British in the eyes of some, both left and right do just from different directions.
Why would someone acknowledging and celebrating their Romanian heritage not really be British?
You tell me, you're the one inferring something from the Nike dress colours for 2021.
No, you were inferring that I thought she was not really British because I pointed out she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. I am interested in understanding why you think I would think that. Because that is not what I think.
Well you highlighted it apropos nothing and your follow up sentence was about her parents immigrating to the UK
I assume you were trolling and feeling morally superior about being a better person than others rather than actually believing it though
That's a very morally superior post, Charles. Made on the playing field of Eton, I suspect. Just so I understand, are you saying I feel morally superior to others even though I do not believe that I am? If I was as clever as you I would not need that explaining, of course, but as I am not I do. Cheers!
No. I am saying that you posted something you didn’t believe because it reminded you that (in your estimation) others did believe it and therefore you were a better person.
Unfortunately, for you, no one bit
I now can't work out why I noticed she was wearing the colours of the Romanian flag. Am I morally superior or a racist?
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Sandpit is married to a Ukrainian and lives in Dubai. You can stop wondering because it isn’t that.
As an economic migrant himself he seems very willing to deny that opportunity to others.
That’s out of order.
Is it? Migration is either good or bad. Personally enjoying the benefits of migration and the ability to live elsewhere whilst insisting that others do not is hypocrisy. I'm not pointing the finger at Sandpit here but its a vibe that was all too common in English expats in Spain who lived there, spoke minimal Spanish and integrated as little as possible. Loud beach care conversations about "bloody migrants" back home who come in to sponge and don't speak the language.
Migration is not either good or bad. You seem to be saying that if something is good then more of it would be better. I can’t actually think of a single thing (with the possible exception of money) for which that stays true past a certain point.
Hang on. My point is pretty simple. You can't be an economic migrant and complain about others being economic migrants.
Being an economic migrant is either good - and others should be allowed to do what you have done - or it is bad and you shouldn't have been allowed to become one.
No. Again, you are assuming that it is a binary choice, that all economic migrants are fungible.
I’m a Physics teacher. Does that mean I should think anybody that wants to should be able to teach Physics, or am I allowed to suggest that only those qualified to do so should?
I'm not talking migration in general - whoever said that we should allow unqualified people to teach? Oh yeah - the Tories when they created Free Schools...
Anyway, I am saying that if you are an economic migrant then you are in favour of economic migration. Yet we have economic migrants arguing that others shouldn't be allowed to do what they have done.
You can't be against something you personally have done without being a hypocrite.
I’m not against Physics teaching: I just don’t think it is a right that anybody should be able to do it. In the same way being an economic migrant is not a right, but that doesn’t mean it is not something that some people are allowed to do.
I’m curious: are you actually arguing that anybody in the world should be free to go anywhere they like and get a job if they can? I think it is a libertarian idea. It only really works if there is no welfare state and you are relaxed about seeing those who don’t have the right skills to make it starve in the street, but each to their own.
No I don't think that and I'm not sure how you infer that from my posts. Let me go back a few steps. I think that rules should be applied evenly, that logic should be applied equally. I get seriously bemused when people change the rules to suit themselves.
My economic migrant argument came with an example of economic migrants in Spain being against economic arguments in the UK. Saying that its wrong for people to move to a country and be a burden on it whilst not integrating - the exact thing they were doing in Spain.
So I am not remotely arguing that being an economic migrant is a right. Just that if you are in favour of economic migration when it comes to you going somewhere else from Britain, it is illogical to deny the same right in reverse.
Final point. The kids of migrants tend to be a real point of anger for many people. It isn't just the migrant thats the problem its that they bring their family. Well this child migrant went on to become a tennis player. We have no idea what skills we will gain through migration.
There was a graphic during the Euros showing that almost the entire England squad were recent (1st/2nd generation) migrants. So we like migrants if they play football or tennis but not if they don't. But how can we find out what they can do if they can't come here and grow up here?
That’s just a nonsensical claim. Polls show people support migration, overwhelmingly, that is beneficial. Where is your proof people are anti migrant unless they play football for England ? It’s nonsense.
Even Farage and his leave campaign wanted a controlled migration stating they would prefer skilled migrants from former commonwealth nations than just anyone rocking up,from Europe.
Most Brits in Spain are retired expats. So hardly migrating for economic reasons more health and climate.
It’s easy to infer that from your posts. You also seem to, as happens to many with political points to make, manage to find people who don’t share your worldview who are clearly wrong and you can radiate your wisdom on and misspell foreign for comic effect.
This is going to be a problem: "the government confirmed to BBC News the daily living costs in a care home - those associated with food, energy bills and the accommodation - will not count towards the cap."
Those are the costs you would still have even if you were not ill I suppose.
When I was doing my PhD and applying for grants for research trips, I was told they would only pay travel and accommodation, not food. The reasoning was that 'a meal you eat there is a replacement for the meal you would eat here.'
The minor detail that buying a very cheap ready meal and eating it with bargain basement potatoes from Lidl was in a slightly different financial bracket from buying food of any sort in London, even a sandwich, didn't seem to have occurred to them!
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
OK, here is a question. When did HMRC start demanding payments on account? I've never had to make one on a self assessment return before, just pay the tax that I owed.
Oh well, I’m now more likely to lose £100 to @Philip_Thompson, than I thought I was going to be 48 hours ago!
On September 8th Sandpit wrote:
"She has no chance of winning SPoTY."
Sometimes you just need to admit you got something badly wrong.
I'm even beginning to wonder if the real reason you're hell-bent on this stance is that she looks and sounds something other than a WASP?
I hope that's not the case but otherwise you're coming across as ridiculous and a sore loser.
Err, what?
I said last week that she had no chance, and I’m now saying she has a much better chance having won the tournament.
Do you even understand what the English words 'no chance' mean? If you write no chance you don't suddenly get the right to revise the words into 'by no chance I really meant not a lot of chance.' Your kind of langauge is dangerous in betting circles.
I said at the time that you'd written something silly.
The context to my comment was that she had no chance *unless she wins the tournament*.
How not to admit you were wrong. Now you're adding words that you didn't put.
We all make mistakes. The secret to success is to admit them, if not to others at least to yourself. To attempt to re-write what you said belittles yourself. Take some time out and reflect.
So, I wonder who will land the big sponsorship deal with Emma? Someone is going to pay her an enormous amount of money for the modern face of a global superstar.
Emma Raducanu can have more than one sponsor, and from inside and outside the tennis world. Look at the logos plastered all over Lewis Hamilton when he wins the Italian Grand Prix this afternoon. And she can appear in adverts separately from sponsorship. Since she is fluent in Mandarin as well as English, the huge Chinese market is also open to her.
I expect that she also may well change perceptions of the British-Romanian community. Even Nigel Farage seems to be changing his mind over having Romanians as neighbours.
I note she came here aged 2, which would have been 2005 or so. Did her father come on his Romanian passport under FOM, with his Chinese spouse?
Why is this even being discussed? As you say, she came here at the age of two and obviously qualifies to represent Britain or she wouldn't be allowed to represent Britain.
We should just be celebrating her remarkable achievement.
We're discussing it because a country which has chunks of the population celebrating romanian migrants going home is also celebrating a romanian migrant winning the tennis.
Why do you think the system under which Raducanu came here shouldn’t apply to others?
Comments
It says the average cost of care for someone with dementia is £26k for mild, £43k for moderate and £55K for severe. Of those costs 39% are SC costs making that element £10,140 for mild to £21,450 for severe. So £86K will be somewhere between 8.5 and 4 years of SC. People will no doubt transition through the layers but many, probably most, will not exhaust £86K and will therefore pay for all of their own care if they have the resources to do so.
Salaries can vary a lot, though, from surprisingly low to megabucks. I forget the precise stat (maybe $240k per week) but Schumacher in his Ferrari days made a staggering sum, and that's before sponsorship.
Here’s a good thread about it, including a link to Ayrton Senna’s old contract with McLaren! https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=228&t=1931872
For any touring sportsperson, the costs are horrendous over the course of a year. Golfers and tennis players hope they can find sponsorship, to pay for all the flights and hotels required for themselves and their teams.
In the same way being an economic migrant is not a right, but that doesn’t mean it is not something that some people are allowed to do.
I’m curious: are you actually arguing that anybody in the world should be free to go anywhere they like and get a job if they can? I think it is a libertarian idea. It only really works if there is no welfare state and you are relaxed about seeing those who don’t have the right skills to make it starve in the street, but each to their own.
I've also had a DNA test done to 'establish' my ancestry and I'm (alleged) to be about 15% Swedish. AToW I've no idea where that comes from.
If you are not double vaxxed then you are mainly putting yourself at risk.
Yes your viral load might be higher. Or it might not be if you are symptom free.
And as someone who is double vaxxed it would be reasonable to say that Covid for you would be similar to getting the flu.
You are right, we don't know whether current exemptions will apply - but I assume they will.
What is explicitly stated is:
- the upper capital limit will rise from £23,250 to £100,000. The current rules lead to the impression that those with below £23,250 in assets contribute nothing towards care costs. This is untrue. You have posted about your uncle and said that he has all fees paid by the authorities. With respect I don't think this is correct. Under current rules the council seek reimbursement of part of the cost from the person's income. The oldie is only allowed to retain £24.90 pw (the Personal Expenses Allowance(PEA)) of income. Any income above this, including state pensions and any other income, is taken by the council. This is the case even for people with assets of £0. Under the new rules: 1) the £24.90 pw PEA, which has been frozen for years, will be upgraded by inflation and 2) once the £86k cap is reached the council will not be allowed to confiscate another penny of income. (See point 43 of the proposals.) This is a biggy. It means that the person in the care home will have all fees paid for AND will start to amass wealth from income that the state cannot touch for a contribution towards the costs.
- Self-funders (i.e. those above £100k assessable assets) can insist that the council arranges the care home contract and fees thus removing the disparity between self-funds and council discounts. (See point 40 of the proposals.) This is a significant move as well, though the levelling will likely settle at a mid-point I suspect - resulting in higher costs out of general taxation.
We can see that these proposals move liability in various ways from the individual to the state. This is what fixing social care means. Agree or disagree - I can see both sides.
But it seems not.. it's much more girly!
"But honestly, I really like the colour red and out of all the outfits that was my favourite one"
https://www.givemesport.com/1750350-emma-raducanu-says-she-wont-change-trademark-red-outfit-for-us-open-semifinal
If you need to provide an elderly person with hot meals, help with washing and showering, help with incontinence -- then it is easier to provide those facilities communally than having lots of individual carers race from home to home at 9.00 am or 1.00 pm to help people individually.
It is easier, and in the end cheaper.
We educate children communally, rather than have lots of individual teachers racing from home to home to provide personal tuition.
Most people don't want to go into a care home because they think it is grim. But, as Nick Palmer's relative found out, it can be like a country hotel.
In retrospect, my mother spend two unhappy years in sheltered accommodation, largely on her own -- with help from carers popping in two or three times day (as well as her family at weekend). She refused to go into a care home.
In fact, she was much happier in her care home where she had more companionship, there was much more structure to the day with a range of activities organised and she was really well looked after. She was in a very good care home.
Care homes have proper facilities to help with washing, eating and incontinence.
I am not sure --- even if you just have the narrow view that you want to save money -- the best thing to do is provide all these services individually in people's homes.
I assume you were trolling and feeling morally superior about being a better person than others rather than actually believing it though
Best sporting moment? Nationally (ie not my own extremely modest sporting experiences) OGS's goal in 1999 was an amazing moment. And I'm far from a Reds fan.
Edit, also if you choose to buy "extras" do these count towards your cap? We may find that the real cap is somewhat higher.
Well, it would be funny.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roundel_of_Romania.svg
Most of her dress is red and blue. The only yellow is in her quite separate cap, so it's fairly marginal anyway. It's not in your face at all.
Not everyone feels like that, but a good care home will respect people's preferences and try to offer both options.
Not sure what immigration control we have now won that we didn't have before. We have the right to remove people who don't contribute economically but we had that right in the EU. We have the right not to staff the border properly so we can't do basic checks and so that people queue for hours at Heathrow. Again nothing new there.
I also had a fairly heavy cold, but I was in luck - the day it was at its worst none of my classes were in as they hadn't had their second tests. So I could sit peacefully in the classroom a long way from everyone else rather than wrestling with teaching or cover.
At what level is migration “a clear and defined net benefit to the economy”?
PRC = red and yellow
Romania = r, y and blue
Canada = white and r
MINUS UK = r, w, b
==========
yellow alone
It is frankly insulting to the vast majority of the English who are just as generous as the Scots or Welsh
You need to attain some balance
But, c'mon, the one I'm most pleased about right now - on this morning of all mornings, as per the Saj on Marr - is that 'vaccine passports' for domestic use in England turn out to be, as yours truly has been saying till blue of face and red of nose, rhetoric only and thus a Not Happening Event.
But (yes @noneoftheabove) I would trade absolutely everything in, every single good call or bet I've ever made, to be right about what it looks like I'm probably going to be wrong about - the wretched ghastly abysmal 'lower than a snake's belly' Donald Trump really does appear to have the GOP nomination at his mercy and thus a serious shot at returning to the White House. Oh god. Say it aint so, Joe.
Not great at searching for foreign press websites. Interestingly that one was interested Bianca Andreescu, the Romanian born Canadian tennis player.
I guess it’s a bit of a stretch to be interested in a Canadian born British tennis player who has a Romanian born father.
My economic migrant argument came with an example of economic migrants in Spain being against economic arguments in the UK. Saying that its wrong for people to move to a country and be a burden on it whilst not integrating - the exact thing they were doing in Spain.
So I am not remotely arguing that being an economic migrant is a right. Just that if you are in favour of economic migration when it comes to you going somewhere else from Britain, it is illogical to deny the same right in reverse.
Final point. The kids of migrants tend to be a real point of anger for many people. It isn't just the migrant thats the problem its that they bring their family. Well this child migrant went on to become a tennis player. We have no idea what skills we will gain through migration.
There was a graphic during the Euros showing that almost the entire England squad were recent (1st/2nd generation) migrants. So we like migrants if they play football or tennis but not if they don't. But how can we find out what they can do if they can't come here and grow up here?
Edit - in previous years they've asked if I want to make one, and I've said no. But they're not really giving me that option here.
I think I convinced them I didn't have to pay it.
His approach is no better than the people who use grooming gangs in Rotherham to assume all migrants are bad people.
But we don’t do balance in politics these days. It’s binary. You’re either 100% on board or part of the problem. It’s not just race. It’s the environment, the trans debate and many others
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9980737/Why-Id-living-1962-smoking-ghastly-PETER-HITCHENS-revels-youth.html
I'm wondering if it's an attempt to claw some more of next year's income into this year. They do after all need it badly.
What I want to know is what the hell she meant by wearing a sparkly black dress and white trainers to the dinner last night. I expect it's something pirate related.
Thanks to all who replied for the clarification. Slightly annoying, but I can still afford it so not a big problem!
Interesting side note Sabalenka wore the same dress in her semi final loss to Leyla
- you think of “economic migration” as a single type of thing, something someone does because it will make their life better. You are looking at it from the point of view if the migrant.
- I think that each case needs to be considered on its merits, that there is a difference between someone who goes to work in a country because they have badly needed skills and someone whose skills are already plentiful amongst those who live there.
- You think migration is good and so more is better.
- I think some migration is good, but like everything you can have to much of a good thing.
How close am I to paraphrasing your views? Or do you think they are caricatures?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Perrotta
There’s even a statue of him in Ashton!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/simone-perrotta-ashton-statue-tameside-13647593.amp
I passed on the chance to ascend Mount Wank, a job clearly best left to Sean next time he's round this way...
Or maybe there's an English born German in the 2018 team...
Of course, if we wanted to be cheeky, it could be, 'how many New Zealanders were on the winning side at the 2019 Cricket World Cup?'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58442991
"Nicola has placed Scotland in a referendum time loop. Six years, and we're making no progress whatsoever. This is Groundhog Scotland, Groundhog referendum" @TimesRadio
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436997381510385664?s=20
The former Dean and then Lord Advocate, James Wolffe, convinced himself that there was a potential conflict between writing such letters and having to determine whether counsel had behaved badly in the event of a complaint. My suggestion to him that these letters was why we had a Dean didn't seem to go down as well as I might have hoped.
Whilst I think he was wrong about this it is a good example of how principled and honourable James Wolffe is. He's had a pretty raw deal from the Scottish establishment and political class.
I'm still not clear who will be paying for "hotel service" elements?
What currently happens for those in Scotland?
Unfortunately, for you, no one bit
You may not believe it but you said it
PRC+ROM+CAN - UK
(r+y) + (r+y+b) + (w+r) - (r+w+b)
= 2r + 2y
Even Farage and his leave campaign wanted a controlled migration stating they would prefer skilled migrants from former commonwealth nations than just anyone rocking up,from Europe.
Most Brits in Spain are retired expats. So hardly migrating for economic reasons more health and climate.
It’s easy to infer that from your posts. You also seem to, as happens to many with political points to make, manage to find people who don’t share your worldview who are clearly wrong and you can radiate your wisdom on and misspell foreign for comic effect.
The minor detail that buying a very cheap ready meal and eating it with bargain basement potatoes from Lidl was in a slightly different financial bracket from buying food of any sort in London, even a sandwich, didn't seem to have occurred to them!