Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
I don’t want to bang on, but the details of that Faroese dolphin hunt are truly distressing. Using jet skis and speedboats they pursued this huge, tiring pod of dolphins for hours. Eventually cornering them on that beach, where they were incompetently slaughtered by fools. Some taking ages to die
One thousand five hundred dolphins
I can understand why a poor, primitive society might need to hunt cetaceans to get by. The Faroese are enormously rich. They’re not going to starve whatever they kill. They can’t eat 1500 dolphins, anyway
So it was mass killing for the sake of mass killing. The joy of sadistic butchery. What the Hell
I don’t normally get that exercised by ‘ecological’ issues but this is horrible.
Nick Palmer! This is your job. The world needs to tell the Faroes: Stop, or else
Or else what?
Well, they have a lovely large tourist industry - relative to their size - which sells the Faroes as this amazing, unspoiled, Edenic destination. Shame if something ever happened to that industry, like a worldwide boycott ensuring its collapse
You seem to be saying that I shouldn't be allowed to go to the Faroes because you don't approve of something some people have been allowed to do. Hope I have misunderstood that.
As I said to Taz, please ignore me. But look at the photos I linked, and decide for yourself
Personally, I’ve always wanted to visit the Faroes. They are meant to be amazing. But I won’t go now, not unless they stop this shit. Personal choice, is all
Other countries do it as well, of course. Inc Japan.
See below for gut-wrenching mass slaughter of the magnificent and beautiful tuna:
I only ever eat sustainable fish, if at all possible (sometimes abroad it’s not possible to know)
The industrialized fishing of tuna is grisly, but at least the tuna are eaten. And the noble tuna is not a highly intelligent mammal like the dolphin
The pointless slaughter of 1400 dolphins for no other reason than sadistic pleasure is in a different and darker moral place
Tuna, as a species, is far more threatened than dolphins are. But I agree that slaughtering a wild mammal seems even more grisly to us than slaughtering a fish.
Loss of biodiversity is the most worrying environmental threat for me, it makes one wonder how much degradation it will take before our species stops. A rhetorical question because it never will.
Yes. Loss of biodiversity is a bleak and depressing thing. I’m a big fan of rewilding
Incidentally, last week in Lucerne I saw a sign saying ‘look out for beavers!’ - in the middle of the city
My guide explained they were reintroduced years back, and ‘now we have so many they are a problem’. But that’s a better problem than having no beavers at all
The reason I think you are missing the point is this. No-one denies that those people who are genuinely dysphoric need help and resources and to be free from attack and prejudice. I absolutely share your concern about this. If trans activists were genuinely concerned about this, they would be campaigning loudly for more resources for dysphoric people. But they aren't. They are focusing on attacking women who raise concerns and this comes across to women as little more than male bullying and men telling women what being a women is.
But the issue is that if you have effective self-ID with no independent objective verifiable gatekeeping of whether someone really is dysphoric then it provides a bloody great loophole for men who are not trans saying that they are in order to access and attack women. And there is plenty of evidence that sexual predators will do just that and are doing so - in prisons and elsewhere.
The other point is this: 80% of genuine transwomen do not have surgery so they remain with a male body. They have the strength and and ability of a man and there is no way of distinguishing between a man with a male body and a man who has gender dysphoria. So that is why - as a matter of safeguarding - you keep all male bodies out of women only spaces. Otherwise you can have no effective safeguarding.
If anyone can identify themselves into a category, then that category ceases to exist. And the rights based on that category - not to be discriminated against - effectively cease to exist. That is the concern women have. Womanhood is not a feeling. It is an objective biological and scientific fact and those who claim that women have penises and men have cervixes and that a man can, just like that, say he is a woman and access women's services is talking nonsense.
One final fact for you: the majority of men claiming to be trans in prisons in the U.K. at the moment are men who have been convicted of sexual offences against women and children. They were not trans when they were free and committing their offences. But they did somehow claim to be this when they got locked up. They do not have gender recognition certificates. They have not gone though any sort of transition. They have not been medically diagnosed. Odd that. And that is why women are concerned - that this is a loophole which puts them at risk, a very real risk, as the High Court recently recognised.
As this is a subject which does not interest everyone I post here the attached helpful guide - written by a woman, a teacher, a Labour Party member of long standing and married to a transwoman. So someone who knows rather more than most the realities around this topic - https://gcritical.org/introduction/.
Thanks so much for posting all this. Its one hell of an issue where as every opinion seems to generate rage from one group or another I tend to stay away. And that is despite my eldest now identifying as non-binary and in their* second relationship with a trans man.
*WTF is this "they/they're bullshit? As the person in question is not plural (or gestalt, or schizophrenic) why is the apparent pronoun for a non-binary person plural? I had no problem with the name change (as I didn't have anything to do with the birth name chosen anyway...) but the pronoun thing drives me nuts. As does the lack of a neutral alternative to son/daughter that isn't archaic like issue / progeny / offspring / scion etc
OK. Whine over.
Good God yes. "They" as use for a single person winds me right up. This predates the trans wars - from the 90s or thereabouts 'they' has been used to refer to a person whose sex you don't know, to avoid the clunky 'his or hers'. Once upon a time, we had a term for singular/gender ambiguous: it was 'his'. 'His' could mean either 'his' in its modern sense or 'his or hers'. But it fell out of favour for understandable reasons. 'It' is the gender-neutral term, but I can understand why it isn't used in this instance. Though if 'it' had historically been the term to use for 'his or hers' it wouldn't have its slightly pejorative overtones now.
I’ve noticed on LinkedIn people putting pronouns on their profiles. Someone at work even has theirs in their sig.
This is becoming increasingly common week by week.
It puts pressure on those who don't to do the same less they attract the finger of suspicion as "transphobic".
I don't think anyone will really mind until it becomes policy that you must do it at somewhere high profile of significant (though perhaps I am wrong and it already is with some). I've definitely seen an increase of it in the last year, but it isn't a requirement yet.
Tories into 39 with another pollster. Down down down
Labours Lexit glass ceiling. Stuck stuck stuck.
Labour down on that as well. They are just going nowhere
Why should they go anywhere? They lost squillions of long serving votes to the Tories and are doing ZILCH, NIHIL, ABSOLUTELY NOWT to convince them to come back. If the government is rubbish (the last couple weeks they have been brilliant at protecting their 2019 voters) the worst that will happen is the voters Torys will keep again at the next election will merely go shy as don’t knows for mid term.
The disastrous position Labour find themselves in they need to be very very active at showing a government in waiting.
This is what the lost voters need to see for starters:
1. The leadership needs to show it has killer instinct the public are looking for, Starmer needs to put some underperforming heads on spikes ASAP - starting with Angela Rayner, Ashworth, Griffith, Smith.
2. Starmer needs to put poster boy of Remain and 2nd ref behind him, Starmer needs to communicate to the Lexits how he is going to build on the success of Brexit to level up their community and bring the good old days back. If he doesn’t do that he doesn’t get the vote back in the places he needs it.
The long-serving voters lost to the Tories are going to be difficult to get back because they are ideologically conservative in many ways and always have been. The spell is broken.
Labour's hope is that he LDs can draw sufficient voters from the CP to deny the latter a majority.
SKS as PM is often interpreted as a done deal, if the Tories have been denied a bare majority.
What parties always say before the GE is always we won't be doing any deals.
What parties say after the election is determined by the arithmetic
The electorate have spoken and they don't want another election immediately. And the parties now have to sort it out.
If SKS has done well enough so that Lab + LibDems + Green can form a coalition, he will be fine. But, I don't seen any other combination being very viable.
If the Tories have lost their majority but remain the largest party, then they will be fine if they can buy another party off. And there will be parties willing to trade, no matter what they say now. Especially, as they can probably claim Boris' head.
Good God yes. "They" as use for a single person winds me right up. This predates the trans wars - from the 90s or thereabouts 'they' has been used to refer to a person whose sex you don't know, to avoid the clunky 'his or hers'. Once upon a time, we had a term for singular/gender ambiguous: it was 'his'. 'His' could mean either 'his' in its modern sense or 'his or hers'. But it fell out of favour for understandable reasons. 'It' is the gender-neutral term, but I can understand why it isn't used in this instance. Though if 'it' had historically been the term to use for 'his or hers' it wouldn't have its slightly pejorative overtones now.
Without venturing into the intense debate on this issue, I think that anyone who gets worked up about language change is on a loser. I'm still resistant to "bored of" instead of "bored by", but I recognise that English has moved on and will get over it. Cookie implicitly concedes they (ha) don't have a viable alternative suggestion. There are some really difficult issues here, but the English language ain't one of them.
Oh I do (implicitly concede) that Nick. It would be very useful to have had a viable alternative back in the days when we needed it only for 'I may be referring to either a man or a woman'. Though in all honesty - I am a middle aged suburban northerner after all - I can't help feeling that anyone who rejects the use of both 'he' and 'she' is being a tad self-indulgent. But that is a separate point. The point is that 'they' already means something else and when you use it to mean a single person you are using it wrongly. (And if you use it to refer to a single person, you should be saying 'They is', not 'They are'.)
But anyway, we SHOULD rail against the lazy or inaccurate use of language. I will happily join you in your crusade against 'bored of'. Similarly, I always flinch slightly at 'try and' rather than 'try to'. And I will silently seethe at the use of 'disinterested' to mean 'indifferent'. (I cannot enjoy the Elbow album 'The Seldom Seen Kid' until after the first two minutes, which I spend cringing with anticipation of the lyric 'a weary and disinterested sigh'.) I don't mind ADDING to language. But losing perfectly serviceable words because someone has decided those words now mean something else upsets me.
You need to get over yourself, it's a great album! Just act 'disinterested'
I had a teacher in primary school who would correct me if I wrote or said "try to", telling me it should be "try and". Took me a few years to unlearn doing it wrong.
I would like a full set of gender neutral pronouns, as I also dislike the singular 'they'.
Cabinet is on reshuffle red alert, partly because the official drivers have been told to ready to ferry ministers at short notice. “I am hearing it could come later today and tomorrow” said one senior member of the government.
He should have done it sooner, since it's been in the offing for ages - now it'll be portrayed as partly in a 'panic' because god forbid the government should fall behind at some point.
Are there any examples of government reshuffles improving things? OK, you have to do them from time to time (let the cream rise, ditch the dregs), but from memory they normally create more problems than they solve. You create some unhappy bunnies and new ministers take time to get up to speed.
Unless anyone knows any different.
I'm not sure how quantifiable it is, since political management is a legitimate consideration for a PM to take into account, as if they face constant battling it hinders government work, but its hard to measure internal rumblings except for times of crisis.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Lesbian dating agencies have plenty of ‘trans women’ on them. Which is fine if they want that but it is the guilt shaming and torrent of abuse they get for wishing to enjoy a single sex attraction and abuse as ‘vagina fetishists’
Oddly gay men don’t seem to get the same level of abuse about dating trans men.
'Vagina fetishists'? Perhaps that'll be coopted as the term for 'traditional' lesbians. Either way its a bloody bizarre term of abuse.
Abuse because of ones' sexual preference was wrong in the past, and it's wrong now.
We seem almost to have done 180s with some of this stuff, and racial issues.
I don’t want to bang on, but the details of that Faroese dolphin hunt are truly distressing. Using jet skis and speedboats they pursued this huge, tiring pod of dolphins for hours. Eventually cornering them on that beach, where they were incompetently slaughtered by fools. Some taking ages to die
One thousand five hundred dolphins
I can understand why a poor, primitive society might need to hunt cetaceans to get by. The Faroese are enormously rich. They’re not going to starve whatever they kill. They can’t eat 1500 dolphins, anyway
So it was mass killing for the sake of mass killing. The joy of sadistic butchery. What the Hell
I don’t normally get that exercised by ‘ecological’ issues but this is horrible.
Nick Palmer! This is your job. The world needs to tell the Faroes: Stop, or else
Or else what?
Well, they have a lovely large tourist industry - relative to their size - which sells the Faroes as this amazing, unspoiled, Edenic destination. Shame if something ever happened to that industry, like a worldwide boycott ensuring its collapse
You seem to be saying that I shouldn't be allowed to go to the Faroes because you don't approve of something some people have been allowed to do. Hope I have misunderstood that.
As I said to Taz, please ignore me. But look at the photos I linked, and decide for yourself
Personally, I’ve always wanted to visit the Faroes. They are meant to be amazing. But I won’t go now, not unless they stop this shit. Personal choice, is all
Other countries do it as well, of course. Inc Japan.
See below for gut-wrenching mass slaughter of the magnificent and beautiful tuna:
I only ever eat sustainable fish, if at all possible (sometimes abroad it’s not possible to know)
The industrialized fishing of tuna is grisly, but at least the tuna are eaten. And the noble tuna is not a highly intelligent mammal like the dolphin
The pointless slaughter of 1400 dolphins for no other reason than sadistic pleasure is in a different and darker moral place
Tuna, as a species, is far more threatened than dolphins are. But I agree that slaughtering a wild mammal seems even more grisly to us than slaughtering a fish.
Loss of biodiversity is the most worrying environmental threat for me, it makes one wonder how much degradation it will take before our species stops. A rhetorical question because it never will.
Yes. Loss of biodiversity is a bleak and depressing thing. I’m a big fan of rewilding
Incidentally, last week in Lucerne I saw a sign saying ‘look out for beavers!’ - in the middle of the city
My guide explained they were reintroduced years back, and ‘now we have so many they are a problem’. But that’s a better problem than having no beavers at all
I don't doubt that you were looking out for beavers, Leon.
Council tax going up, NI going up, income tax thresholds being frozen, jump in fuel prices, large jump in energy prices, all round price inflation, squeeze on public spending post-Covid... possibly an interest rate rise to dampen it down.
Anyone who thinks another Conservative majority is a shoe-in for 2023/2024 isn't thinking properly.
Why did Brown lose in 2010?
It wasn't because of the Financial Crash. It was because the Tories successfully pinned the blame for the financial crash onto Labour. It was a political defeat.
You paint a picture of rocky times ahead, but regardless of what I might think about Johnson's handling of the pandemic or Brexit, the Opposition would have to pin the blame on Johnson for him to suffer electorally. My sense is that people generally pin the blame on the virus, because the Opposition have failed to win the political argument.
In difficult times who will voters trust? Will they trust the politician who delivered Brexit and vaccines, as promised, to steer them through this latest crisis? Or will they trust a politician so scared of divisions within his own party that he won't tell the voters what he stands for?
Not sure how well Brexit is working out for other than the people who read the Express. I suspect it's working badly enough for some sections of the Leave inclined public to think it was either a bad idea, or it's been badly handled or both. They may not come back to Labour, but equally they may not vote at all, which, as far as the Tories are concerned, would be nearly as bad.
I don’t want to bang on, but the details of that Faroese dolphin hunt are truly distressing. Using jet skis and speedboats they pursued this huge, tiring pod of dolphins for hours. Eventually cornering them on that beach, where they were incompetently slaughtered by fools. Some taking ages to die
One thousand five hundred dolphins
I can understand why a poor, primitive society might need to hunt cetaceans to get by. The Faroese are enormously rich. They’re not going to starve whatever they kill. They can’t eat 1500 dolphins, anyway
So it was mass killing for the sake of mass killing. The joy of sadistic butchery. What the Hell
I don’t normally get that exercised by ‘ecological’ issues but this is horrible.
Nick Palmer! This is your job. The world needs to tell the Faroes: Stop, or else
Yes, the world needs more arrogant white western nations dictating their will to remote communities. Worked so well so far.
Perhaps engaging with them may be a better Approach than just telling them.
It’s not ‘arrogance’. Ffs. It’s basic humanity. Also the Faroes are themselves a wealthy white western nation. Much wealthier than us, per capita
Also, the world HAS politely asked them to stop doing this, for many years. They just ignore it. Because this senseless killing (which gets more horrific by the year) is an ‘ancient tradition’. Yes. The ‘ancient tradition’ of pursuing a thousand dolphins on jet skis then using power drills to lazily chop them to death
Enough polite asking. Fuck their tourist industry. That would be a good place to start
You are extremely arrogant, and typical of the neocon mindset.
Your views are right and must be imposed by fair means or foul.
Sod other cultures traditions if they offend white middle class arrogant western sensibilities.
Engaging is the best way.
Tell you what, ignore me. I don’t mind. But look at the photos I linked, and decide how you feel
I don’t approve, I don’t agree, but I don’t care for your ranting, rabid, virtue signalling and demands they change something you don’t like. I’d rather engage with them.
You are clearly confusing disagreeing with your approach with agreeing or supporting what they are doing.
The images make me sick, and angry. I confess this is true. I’m not ‘virtue signaling’ tho. My ‘rabid’ ranting is sincere. As I said, just ignore me
One of the Faroese guys laughing as he ineptly chops a dolphin to death is wearing a Che tee shirt. The depths of irony
if you're not vegan you've got just as much blood on your hands.
As I get older my meat eating troubles me more - the more I learn. I might one day end up vegan.
Hah! Following our recent short break in London Mrs P and I were both pinged yesterday (the 14th) for a covid contact on the 8th - six days earlier!
Six days seems very slow - how is that going to help?
We've no symptoms and we already took lateral flow test on Friday when we returned home but now both have to do a PCR test of course. Pretty sure we don't have covid though.
You still have the App!
We do. Country bumpkins, eh? Still, somebody else must've had switched on it in Soho too!
Hmmm... maybe covid I do have. I see my syntax has all to pot gone.
Mr/Ms (I'm sorry, I'm terribly at remembering certain people) Moonshine, it's fascinating to consider whether aliens are likely to be friendly or aggressive.
Also irrelevant, as they're likely to be orders of magnitude more powerful than we are.
They could also be orders of magnitude smaller than us.
Or bigger.
Unrelated fun fact: you are bigger than the Planck length by a larger multiple than the universe is bigger than you.
I don’t want to bang on, but the details of that Faroese dolphin hunt are truly distressing. Using jet skis and speedboats they pursued this huge, tiring pod of dolphins for hours. Eventually cornering them on that beach, where they were incompetently slaughtered by fools. Some taking ages to die
One thousand five hundred dolphins
I can understand why a poor, primitive society might need to hunt cetaceans to get by. The Faroese are enormously rich. They’re not going to starve whatever they kill. They can’t eat 1500 dolphins, anyway
So it was mass killing for the sake of mass killing. The joy of sadistic butchery. What the Hell
I don’t normally get that exercised by ‘ecological’ issues but this is horrible.
Nick Palmer! This is your job. The world needs to tell the Faroes: Stop, or else
Yes, the world needs more arrogant white western nations dictating their will to remote communities. Worked so well so far.
Perhaps engaging with them may be a better Approach than just telling them.
It’s not ‘arrogance’. Ffs. It’s basic humanity. Also the Faroes are themselves a wealthy white western nation. Much wealthier than us, per capita
Also, the world HAS politely asked them to stop doing this, for many years. They just ignore it. Because this senseless killing (which gets more horrific by the year) is an ‘ancient tradition’. Yes. The ‘ancient tradition’ of pursuing a thousand dolphins on jet skis then using power drills to lazily chop them to death
Enough polite asking. Fuck their tourist industry. That would be a good place to start
You are extremely arrogant, and typical of the neocon mindset.
Your views are right and must be imposed by fair means or foul.
Sod other cultures traditions if they offend white middle class arrogant western sensibilities.
Engaging is the best way.
Tell you what, ignore me. I don’t mind. But look at the photos I linked, and decide how you feel
I don’t approve, I don’t agree, but I don’t care for your ranting, rabid, virtue signalling and demands they change something you don’t like. I’d rather engage with them.
You are clearly confusing disagreeing with your approach with agreeing or supporting what they are doing.
The images make me sick, and angry. I confess this is true. I’m not ‘virtue signaling’ tho. My ‘rabid’ ranting is sincere. As I said, just ignore me
One of the Faroese guys laughing as he ineptly chops a dolphin to death is wearing a Che tee shirt. The depths of irony
if you're not vegan you've got just as much blood on your hands.
As I get older my meat eating troubles me more - the more I learn. I might one day end up vegan.
Hey, I’m on a journey and at least I’ve started
My meat eating doesn't trouble me any more or less than it ever did, but my body may disagree as I swear I get more frequent belly rumblings with the red meats thesedays.
I hope that is in my head - I'd get by fine if not able to eat it, plenty of delicious stuff out there, but if it is to happen I prefer to do it by choice.
The problem with the "I'm fixing the NHS, Labour are against it" argument is that Worzel isn't fixing the NHS. Nor is the cut to UC relevant to the NHS as supposedly the hypothecated NI rise does that.
So he is chaining himself to massive double tax rises for the working poor. And will then have to explain to them why the NHS has got worse not better.
So not only are SAGE cooking up utterly laughable scenarios to scare people with again, they're also publishing false data to suggest vaccines lose effectiveness over time.
It's not false data, just an older version of the plot.
It was out of date at the time of publishing. To say it didn't used to be false is little comfort.
Was it? The pre-print came out yesterday. I'm sorry, but it's not false, and the two datasets are even consistent with one another.
Yes - very wide error bars on the first version, now reduced with much more data. The problem is just that of reporting the data - there ought to be an update about this, but that of course will not interest the media...
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours of overtime every month to make that up.
Wouldn't it be funny if there was a reshuffle and a PM was to say "I've had a hard look at the whole team, and I've concluded that part of the problem is the leadership, so I will be moving myself to Health Secretary, and X will take over as PM instead"?
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
I'm a bit thick, but this is not 75% of all earnings is it? Its only on earnings above the zero tax threshold?
The problem with the "I'm fixing the NHS, Labour are against it" argument is that Worzel isn't fixing the NHS. Nor is the cut to UC relevant to the NHS as supposedly the hypothecated NI rise does that.
So he is chaining himself to massive double tax rises for the working poor. And will then have to explain to them why the NHS has got worse not better.
Starmer should frame the next election around this: the party of work vs the party of wealth. Should at least get some of the Wall back.
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
It would be seen as such, and its removal attacked as such, it is true, but it is not technically true, in the same way the Bedroom Tax was not really a tax, but that those affected by it cared not for such a distinction.
Mr/Ms (I'm sorry, I'm terribly at remembering certain people) Moonshine, it's fascinating to consider whether aliens are likely to be friendly or aggressive.
Also irrelevant, as they're likely to be orders of magnitude more powerful than we are.
They could also be orders of magnitude smaller than us.
Or bigger.
Unrelated fun fact: you are bigger than the Planck length by a larger multiple than the universe is bigger than you.
Given the Universe has an event horizon, it is not possible to say how big the Universe is.
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
To be fair he's quoted lines I've been using here for a long time. Some of his attack lines could have been lifted straight from my thread header the other day. So I may not be impartial. 😉
Mr/Ms (I'm sorry, I'm terribly at remembering certain people) Moonshine, it's fascinating to consider whether aliens are likely to be friendly or aggressive.
Also irrelevant, as they're likely to be orders of magnitude more powerful than we are.
They could also be orders of magnitude smaller than us.
Or bigger.
Unrelated fun fact: you are bigger than the Planck length by a larger multiple than the universe is bigger than you.
Given the Universe has an event horizon, it is not possible to say how big the Universe is.
I thought I'd leave out "observable" and see who bit.
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
To be fair he's quoted lines I've been using here for a long time. Some of his attack lines could have been lifted straight from my thread header the other day. So I may not be impartial. 😉
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
Praise from Libertarian Pirate better than praise from me? Really?
Every post you make is "Starmer is crap", which is a fair enough point of view but let's be honest, nothing Starmer says or does will ever be acceptable for you.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
I'm a bit thick, but this is not 75% of all earnings is it? Its only on earnings above the zero tax threshold?
How does that help someone who wants to eg earn £20 or £100 extra and needs to work 9 or 50 extra hours of overtime to do so?
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
It was alongside Sunak's other pandemic support measures wasn't it? I don't recall the exact rationale but it was certainly pandemic related and not intended as a permanent rise. It is also unfair because UC recipients get it but tax credit recipients do not.
Kier Starmer strong today with the working single parent example. The loud cheering from the Tory benches is to drown out their own consciences.
Boris obviously cares about nothing than being the “party of the NHS”. He should be careful I think, quite the hostage to fortune. It becomes easier to see stay at homes chipping away the blue bricks in the red wall, and the long awaited partial recovery of the yellows in the South and South West.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Inflation at 3.2% in August, largest rise on record
Its certainly not the largest rise on record.. it might be the largest rise in one month?
RPI inflation rate is now 5%.
something is going on because everything is getting as expensive as shit very quickly. i bought a clutch this for week for £510 and i thought, fuck me that's pricey. i checked my records and i bought the exact same thing for £384 in july 2020!
Kier Starmer strong today with the working single parent example. The loud cheering from the Tory benches is to drown out their own consciences.
Boris obviously cares about nothing than being the “party of the NHS”. He should be careful I think, quite the hostage to fortune. It becomes easier to see stay at homes chipping away the blue bricks in the red wall, and the long awaited partial recovery of the yellows in the South and South West.
His real peril on the "party of the NHS" line is that things are bad and his plan makes them worse. I think people can just about buy the idea of paying more to get better services. But we're going to see the poorest paying more and getting worse services.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
Says Gove possibly to Housing to sort out the mess - but what's the point? It takes about a year for government to come up with plans, circulate them, see the reaction and then drop it, and ultimately the Shires don't want any solution to housing that might be proposed.
Also, what the heck is this?
Most think Raab looks nailed on for a move to the Cabinet Office. His eye for granular detail seen as better suited there than FCDO.
Inflation at 3.2% in August, largest rise on record
Its certainly not the largest rise on record.. it might be the largest rise in one month?
RPI inflation rate is now 5%.
something is going on because everything is getting as expensive as shit very quickly. i bought a clutch this for week for £510 and i thought, fuck me that's pricey. i checked my records and i bought the exact same thing for £384 in july 2020!
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
I've never understood why it was needed, say a month ago, but wont be from end of this month.
Has something changed.
If anything the only thing that has changed is prices are soaring.
There are a million vacancies. People should get jobs.
So for the people working full time jobs who are facing over 75% marginal tax rates, what other jobs do you think they should get and how does that help when they're facing 75% marginal tax rates?
Would you be happy to pay a 75% marginal tax rate? Why should anyone, let alone the poorest in society, face tax rates over 50%?
Tories down but Labour making no progress. It's time to get rid of Starmer and get Andy Burnham or Ed Balls a safe seat.
It's not going to happen. Starmer is safer than Johnson because getting rid of him is just about impossible. There is no conceivable route to it happening. He will only go if he wants to.
Then we get 5 more years of Boris. The government looks like it wants to lose but Labour doesn't look like it wants to win.
Most mid-term governments look like they want to lose. Most of them somehow don't.
It's rarer to see an Opposition that just can't be bothered.
I am unthrilled thus far with the Starmer project, love to see more fizz and radicalism, but he has decided to play it the way he's playing it and I have a sneaky feeling it's going to work, defining that as making the next election competitive. Dec 19 was a Con landslide and since then there's been Brexit done (yay!) followed by nothing of the remotest interest to the electorate apart from Covid. There's been no public appetite for hearing either grand visions or detailed alternatives from Labour. "Shut the fuck up, can't you see there's a pandemic on and Boris is doing his best" type thing. With this backdrop, that Labour are closing the gap in the polls bodes well for them. The notion they should be miles ahead "cos it's midterm" is old chestnut bollocks that doesn't pay sufficient regard to the highly unusual circumstances.
That being said, in every mid term I can remember, where the opposition wasn't ahead, people were saying "this time it is different"
The simple truth is that the kind of winners you can spot at this stage are obvious. Thatcher, Smith and Blair had it. Cameron as well.
Starmer isn't that kind of leader.
What about Gaitskell in mid-1961? It was far from obvious that Thatcher was going to win from Autumn 1977 until the Winter of Discontent at the beginning of 1979. Had Harold Wilson still been Labour's leader rather than the hopeless Callaghan, I doubt that she would have entered No 10.
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
To be fair he's quoted lines I've been using here for a long time. Some of his attack lines could have been lifted straight from my thread header the other day. So I may not be impartial. 😉
I am sure Starmer pops on here
Has anyone ever seen Keir and Philip in the same room?
- Both agreed with Boris a lot during the pandemic - Both strongly supported a hard Brexit (see Starmer's actions as shadow Brexit sec) - Both are rightly upset about real marginal tax rates on the low paid and even use the same attack lines - Both were glad to see the back of Corbyn - Both are forensic arguers that seem to rely on grinding down their opponents, while everyone else gets a bit bored
Tories down but Labour making no progress. It's time to get rid of Starmer and get Andy Burnham or Ed Balls a safe seat.
It's not going to happen. Starmer is safer than Johnson because getting rid of him is just about impossible. There is no conceivable route to it happening. He will only go if he wants to.
Then we get 5 more years of Boris. The government looks like it wants to lose but Labour doesn't look like it wants to win.
Most mid-term governments look like they want to lose. Most of them somehow don't.
It's rarer to see an Opposition that just can't be bothered.
I am unthrilled thus far with the Starmer project, love to see more fizz and radicalism, but he has decided to play it the way he's playing it and I have a sneaky feeling it's going to work, defining that as making the next election competitive. Dec 19 was a Con landslide and since then there's been Brexit done (yay!) followed by nothing of the remotest interest to the electorate apart from Covid. There's been no public appetite for hearing either grand visions or detailed alternatives from Labour. "Shut the fuck up, can't you see there's a pandemic on and Boris is doing his best" type thing. With this backdrop, that Labour are closing the gap in the polls bodes well for them. The notion they should be miles ahead "cos it's midterm" is old chestnut bollocks that doesn't pay sufficient regard to the highly unusual circumstances.
That being said, in every mid term I can remember, where the opposition wasn't ahead, people were saying "this time it is different"
The simple truth is that the kind of winners you can spot at this stage are obvious. Thatcher, Smith and Blair had it. Cameron as well.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
To be fair he's quoted lines I've been using here for a long time. Some of his attack lines could have been lifted straight from my thread header the other day. So I may not be impartial. 😉
I am sure Starmer pops on here
Has anyone ever seen Keir and Philip in the same room?
- Both agreed with Boris a lot during the pandemic - Both strongly supported a hard Brexit (see Starmer's actions as shadow Brexit sec) - Both are rightly upset about real marginal tax rates on the low paid and even use the same attack lines - Both were glad to see the back of Corbyn - Both are forensic arguers that seem to rely on grinding down their opponents, while everyone else gets a bit bored
Why can't I be Keir Starmer? Although I'm also a golfer, from memory
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
Praise from Libertarian Pirate better than praise from me? Really?
Every post you make is "Starmer is crap", which is a fair enough point of view but let's be honest, nothing Starmer says or does will ever be acceptable for you.
Not true.
I am spelling out what he needs to do to be a winner rather than loser.
I’m not trying to hurt him, or you. I’m trying to wake you up.
There’s a reason why the last YM episode before YPM was called the killer instinct. And in 92 Labour thought they were on course for getting the seats back, so Kinnock was sent into his greenhouse. They should have been doing more for longer. And exactly what do I mean?
What do the Lexits - the glass ceiling on labours polling, the Tory voting block keeping Labour from power - want to see and hear.
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
I've never understood why it was needed, say a month ago, but wont be from end of this month.
Has something changed.
If anything the only thing that has changed is prices are soaring.
When there were a few million extra people claiming UC, the govt were concerned the low rates would hurt them electorally as the newbies were shocked how low it was.
As the economy improves and more people come off UC, the govt is less concerned that low rates will hurt them electorally, indeed historically being tough has worked well for them.
That was the rationale, nothing to do with fairness, prices or cost of living.
This is the most rattled I have seen Worzel in ages
His Mum died yesterday. I’m not surprised he’s off form. Who wouldn’t be?
If he took a week off I would absolutely support it. He chose not to. His "performance" is struggling not because his brain is elsewhere but because he has zero excuses for what he is doing.
Some reshuffle rumours from a few sources (for what any of it is worth):
1. A big promotion for Gove looks less likely than many think. Housing is where one senior figure thinks he’s heading, to deploy his reforming zeal and fix a big mess. Some even think PM may fire him. Hmm.
2. Priti Patel may be safe in the Home Office, despite a lot of briefing against her. Well liked by the PM and party members.
3. Most think Raab looks nailed on for a move to the Cabinet Office. His eye for granular detail seen as better suited there than FCDO.
4. Who’d replace Raab at FCDO? Truss seems the odds on favourite. Seen as able to articulate a more powerful Global Britain message.
5. Who is vulnerable to go? Robert Jenrick looks shaky. PM will also have to sack another 2 or 3 to create space for promotion. We’ll soon see.
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
Praise from Libertarian Pirate better than praise from me? Really?
Every post you make is "Starmer is crap", which is a fair enough point of view but let's be honest, nothing Starmer says or does will ever be acceptable for you.
Not true.
I am spelling out what he needs to do to be a winner rather than loser.
I’m not trying to hurt him, or you. I’m trying to wake you up.
There’s a reason why the last YM episode before YPM was called the killer instinct. And in 92 Labour thought they were on course for getting the seats back, so Kinnock was sent into his greenhouse. They should have been doing more for longer. And exactly what do I mean?
What do the Lexits want to see and hear.
If Starmer repeated Kinnock's 1992 performance in twenty years he'd be known as the man who saved Labour. 1992 setup the 1997 landslide.
Says Gove possibly to Housing to sort out the mess - but what's the point? It takes about a year for government to come up with plans, circulate them, see the reaction and then drop it, and ultimately the Shires don't want any solution to housing that might be proposed.
Also, what the heck is this?
Most think Raab looks nailed on for a move to the Cabinet Office. His eye for granular detail seen as better suited there than FCDO.
Depends how granular they mean. Big enough to see from nearby planets? I would say big enough to see from space, but the proximity of France and the UK and the English channel are clearly visible from orbit and he missed that.
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
It was alongside Sunak's other pandemic support measures wasn't it? I don't recall the exact rationale but it was certainly pandemic related and not intended as a permanent rise. It is also unfair because UC recipients get it but tax credit recipients do not.
In fairness, you don't recall the exact rationale because there was none. The only thing thing I can think of is that in March 2020 HMG were worried lost of new UC claimaints would suddenly realise how crap the UC rates are.
PS anyone on tax credit can switch to UC at any time.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
If I were Boris and had his level of ambition, I’d be appointing someone to Cabinet from outside of government who could realistically challenge Sunak for the leadership gig. Make it less of a slam dunk for Sunak so he thinks twice before trying to topple his leader.
That firstly means not sacking Gove. It also means bringing back a Hunt, or bringing in a Tugenhardt. Or if he’s feeling super gutsy, ennobling Rory the Tory to run the FCO.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
I'm a bit thick, but this is not 75% of all earnings is it? Its only on earnings above the zero tax threshold?
How does that help someone who wants to eg earn £20 or £100 extra and needs to work 9 or 50 extra hours of overtime to do so?
It doesn't but its slightly dishonest to say that the real tax rate is 75% on say 11K earnings, because it isn't. It might be on the extra income, but I believe earning money is better than having it topped up by government, where possible.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
First time I have watched PMQs in an age (purely because it happened to be on the telly while I popped into the kitchen for lunch).
Glad I did. Absolutely excellent from Sir Keir. I felt sorry for Boris – as you say, he had no comeback because there is no viable comeback.
As I keep saying, watch this space. This policy is a burner. It will be either cancelled or rescinded in short order. It's a disaster.
This is the most rattled I have seen Worzel in ages
His Mum died yesterday. I’m not surprised he’s off form. Who wouldn’t be?
If he took a week off I would absolutely support it. He chose not to. His "performance" is struggling not because his brain is elsewhere but because he has zero excuses for what he is doing.
Thankfully PMQs doesn't really matter at all. If he needs time off, it's better for him and for the country that he takes it and not be judged for it. Whoever is in charge, I want them at the top of their game.
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
I've never understood why it was needed, say a month ago, but wont be from end of this month.
Has something changed.
If anything the only thing that has changed is prices are soaring.
There are a million vacancies. People should get jobs.
It's not quite as easy as that - at least not straight away.
My daughter spent all summer trying to get a job, but things in east London weren't so desperate that anyone was prepared to take on a student with no prior experience temporarily, until August, when it was too late.
In early July I was in the Lake District and almost every shop/pub/restaurant in Keswick had 'Staff wanted' signs in the window. But there would have been no point moving there, even if you were prepared to move there permanently, as there was nowhere to live (I did look, nothing available to rent at all)
So the problem we have at the moment is that all the jobs are in the wrong places, and the wrong sectors, for the people available. I will balance out over time but that's likely to be months/years.
In his exchanges with Starmer, Johnson leaned into the idea that the end of free movement is one of the reasons why wages are rising. That thinking is why he’s so reluctant to do what Roger Gale urged him to do and ease immigration restrictions in response to labour shortages
Now we have Kim Leadbeater asking a question. Elected 1st July. And Anum Qaisar-Javed asking a question. Elected 13th May. Meanwhile the MP for Hartlepool elected 6th May has made no speeches. Asked no verbal or written questions. Has done literally nothing.
This is a problem for the Tories. It is no good winning the red wall and then doing nothing. They need to act.
Comments
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
Incidentally, last week in Lucerne I saw a sign saying ‘look out for beavers!’ - in the middle of the city
My guide explained they were reintroduced years back, and ‘now we have so many they are a problem’. But that’s a better problem than having no beavers at all
What parties always say before the GE is always we won't be doing any deals.
What parties say after the election is determined by the arithmetic
The electorate have spoken and they don't want another election immediately. And the parties now have to sort it out.
If SKS has done well enough so that Lab + LibDems + Green can form a coalition, he will be fine. But, I don't seen any other combination being very viable.
If the Tories have lost their majority but remain the largest party, then they will be fine if they can buy another party off. And there will be parties willing to trade, no matter what they say now. Especially, as they can probably claim Boris' head.
But, I largely agree with @gealbhan 's analysis.
Historically, Labour never get rid of failing leaders in time. And history repeats itself.
I had a teacher in primary school who would correct me if I wrote or said "try to", telling me it should be "try and". Took me a few years to unlearn doing it wrong.
I would like a full set of gender neutral pronouns, as I also dislike the singular 'they'.
@JohnRentoul
·
20m
From today, the starting pay rate for new Amazon workers in the US will be $18 an hour
I suspect it's working badly enough for some sections of the Leave inclined public to think it was either a bad idea, or it's been badly handled or both.
They may not come back to Labour, but equally they may not vote at all, which, as far as the Tories are concerned, would be nearly as bad.
For anyone making ends meet at the moment it will certainly feel like a cut.
And the tax system means that if you're facing over 75% tax rates then its not easy earn your way out of that.
Unrelated fun fact: you are bigger than the Planck length by a larger multiple than the universe is bigger than you.
‘The PM will today conduct a reshuffle to put in place a strong and united team to Build Back Better from the pandemic’
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1438098571807666183
‘The PM will today conduct a reshuffle to put in place a strong and united team to Build Back Better from the pandemic’
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1438098571807666183?s=20
I hope that is in my head - I'd get by fine if not able to eat it, plenty of delicious stuff out there, but if it is to happen I prefer to do it by choice.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
So he is chaining himself to massive double tax rises for the working poor. And will then have to explain to them why the NHS has got worse not better.
Those tax rates are despicable.
This chairman Kier stuff is infantile.
Has something changed.
If anything the only thing that has changed is prices are soaring.
How are you?
Boris obviously cares about nothing than being the “party of the NHS”. He should be careful I think, quite the hostage to fortune. It becomes easier to see stay at homes chipping away the blue bricks in the red wall, and the long awaited partial recovery of the yellows in the South and South West.
I don't do workouts anyway because I figure, why take the risk?
The UK economy grew at the fastest rate in the developed world in the second quarter according to the OECD
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1438095252502417409?s=19
Keeping Priti Patel? God help us all
Simon Hart is a NutNut victim. Pro hunting.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
Says Gove possibly to Housing to sort out the mess - but what's the point? It takes about a year for government to come up with plans, circulate them, see the reaction and then drop it, and ultimately the Shires don't want any solution to housing that might be proposed.
Also, what the heck is this?
Most think Raab looks nailed on for a move to the Cabinet Office. His eye for granular detail seen as better suited there than FCDO.
Would you be happy to pay a 75% marginal tax rate? Why should anyone, let alone the poorest in society, face tax rates over 50%?
It was far from obvious that Thatcher was going to win from Autumn 1977 until the Winter of Discontent at the beginning of 1979. Had Harold Wilson still been Labour's leader rather than the hopeless Callaghan, I doubt that she would have entered No 10.
- Both agreed with Boris a lot during the pandemic
- Both strongly supported a hard Brexit (see Starmer's actions as shadow Brexit sec)
- Both are rightly upset about real marginal tax rates on the low paid and even use the same attack lines
- Both were glad to see the back of Corbyn
- Both are forensic arguers that seem to rely on grinding down their opponents, while everyone else gets a bit bored
Worzel says no, there is no problem.
Absolute cringe lol
I am spelling out what he needs to do to be a winner rather than loser.
I’m not trying to hurt him, or you. I’m trying to wake you up.
There’s a reason why the last YM episode before YPM was called the killer instinct.
And in 92 Labour thought they were on course for getting the seats back, so Kinnock was sent into his greenhouse. They should have been doing more for longer. And exactly what do I mean?
What do the Lexits - the glass ceiling on labours polling, the Tory voting block keeping Labour from power - want to see and hear.
As the economy improves and more people come off UC, the govt is less concerned that low rates will hurt them electorally, indeed historically being tough has worked well for them.
That was the rationale, nothing to do with fairness, prices or cost of living.
1. A big promotion for Gove looks less likely than many think. Housing is where one senior figure thinks he’s heading, to deploy his reforming zeal and fix a big mess. Some even think PM may fire him. Hmm.
2. Priti Patel may be safe in the Home Office, despite a lot of briefing against her. Well liked by the PM and party members.
3. Most think Raab looks nailed on for a move to the Cabinet Office. His eye for granular detail seen as better suited there than FCDO.
4. Who’d replace Raab at FCDO? Truss seems the odds on favourite. Seen as able to articulate a more powerful Global Britain message.
5. Who is vulnerable to go? Robert Jenrick looks shaky. PM will also have to sack another 2 or 3 to create space for promotion. We’ll soon see.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1438100503855050754?s=20
PS anyone on tax credit can switch to UC at any time.
Thank fuck for that!
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
That firstly means not sacking Gove. It also means bringing back a Hunt, or bringing in a Tugenhardt. Or if he’s feeling super gutsy, ennobling Rory the Tory to run the FCO.
Glad I did. Absolutely excellent from Sir Keir. I felt sorry for Boris – as you say, he had no comeback because there is no viable comeback.
As I keep saying, watch this space. This policy is a burner. It will be either cancelled or rescinded in short order. It's a disaster.
My daughter spent all summer trying to get a job, but things in east London weren't so desperate that anyone was prepared to take on a student with no prior experience temporarily, until August, when it was too late.
In early July I was in the Lake District and almost every shop/pub/restaurant in Keswick had 'Staff wanted' signs in the window. But there would have been no point moving there, even if you were prepared to move there permanently, as there was nowhere to live (I did look, nothing available to rent at all)
So the problem we have at the moment is that all the jobs are in the wrong places, and the wrong sectors, for the people available. I will balance out over time but that's likely to be months/years.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1438103584483205120?s=20
This is a problem for the Tories. It is no good winning the red wall and then doing nothing. They need to act.