Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Could Raab be in trouble at Esher and Walton? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageCould Raab be in trouble at Esher and Walton? – politicalbetting.com

Having lived and brought up my family in the neighbouring constituency of Twickenham Dominic Raab’s seat of Esher and Walton is one I know well and where the LDs have hopes of making a gain whenever the general election happens.

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,043
    This has to be an excellent prospect for the Lib Dems. But, they'd need to win over probably 750 - 1,000 votes directly from the Conservatives. The big danger for them at the next election is chasing too many targets, They'll need to focus on just about a dozen or so.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,127
    edited September 15
    Hilarious that losing Cobham from a seat can be considered a positive for the Tories.
  • I'd say Guildford is the most likely LD gain in Surrey at the next election with Esher and Walton 2nd most likely. The Lib dems will also probably have a punt at Woking as well.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 638
    Sean_F said:

    This has to be an excellent prospect for the Lib Dems. But, they'd need to win over probably 750 - 1,000 votes directly from the Conservatives. The big danger for them at the next election is chasing too many targets, They'll need to focus on just about a dozen or so.

    I think they should actually focus on by-election-style campaigns in about 4-5, and see what else they can pick up elsewhere. And not a stupid "decapitation" strategy - that just invites extra effort from high-media-profile incumbents. Be realistic because they are coming from such a low base.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,122
    This is the sort of seat that probably had a strong aversion to Corbyn. I'd expect that the LDs will lose some votes back to a Starmer led Labour.

    Still likely to be close-run though.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,907
    Sean_F said:

    This has to be an excellent prospect for the Lib Dems. But, they'd need to win over probably 750 - 1,000 votes directly from the Conservatives. The big danger for them at the next election is chasing too many targets, They'll need to focus on just about a dozen or so.

    My understanding is that the LD target list will be quite small.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 638
    There's also the separate question of LD defence of the 4 marginals in Scotland. That should not be taken lightly.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,127

    I'd say Guildford is the most likely LD gain in Surrey at the next election with Esher and Walton 2nd most likely. The Lib dems will also probably have a punt at Woking as well.

    Got to win over the Labour voters on Sheerwater...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,111
    Agreed it looks a very strong target. I think that the Labour vote went tactical as far as can realistically be expected - three quarters seem to have switched - but although we discuss every poll in terms of "Can the Tories lose their majority?" (the answer to which is Hmmm), the polls are extremely consistent that they are unlikely to do quite as well as in 2019. Add to that the anecdotal interviews with constituents about Raab's recent issues and the seat looks highly vulnerable.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,553

    Sean_F said:

    This has to be an excellent prospect for the Lib Dems. But, they'd need to win over probably 750 - 1,000 votes directly from the Conservatives. The big danger for them at the next election is chasing too many targets, They'll need to focus on just about a dozen or so.

    My understanding is that the LD target list will be quite small.
    Probably also going after Jeremy Hunt in SW Surrey?
  • FPT

    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.
    OK. Take a breath. And imagine that conversation on the doorstep between a Tory candidate with a voter in that position. "I know that you are being effectively taxed at 75% because we are taking 75p of every pound you earn. But it is not a 75% tax rate and Labour are being slightly dishonest saying that it is".
    They are not being taxed at 75% though are they? And it wouldn't be 75 p of every extra pound they earn, only in a certain bracket. And my personal belief is that work should pay, not the government (i.e. the tax payer).
    If you're on UC and paying Income Tax and NI then yes it is 75p of every extra pound they earn. Which means people don't bother seeking to earn more money and instead rely upon their benefits.

    If your personal belief is that work should pay instead of the taxpayer then why would you want an effective 75% tax rate that means people rely upon the taxpayer and don't seek extra wages from work?

    Cutting tax rates means people can get more from work and need less from the taxpayer. How can you object to that?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,553
    All told, they do have a good prospect for establishing a nice yellow block running out of SW London into Surrey.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,986
    Omnium said:

    This is the sort of seat that probably had a strong aversion to Corbyn. I'd expect that the LDs will lose some votes back to a Starmer led Labour.

    Still likely to be close-run though.

    Strong aversion to Corbyn would have kept some Tories onside. With Starmer in place they could risk an LD vote.
    As for Labour voters, probably not much more to squeeze, but the 'wasted vote' argument would apply.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 14,947
    Reshuffle

    #SavePriti
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,956
    Esher and Walton will be picked up quite easily by the yellow peril I think.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,833

    FPT

    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.
    OK. Take a breath. And imagine that conversation on the doorstep between a Tory candidate with a voter in that position. "I know that you are being effectively taxed at 75% because we are taking 75p of every pound you earn. But it is not a 75% tax rate and Labour are being slightly dishonest saying that it is".
    They are not being taxed at 75% though are they? And it wouldn't be 75 p of every extra pound they earn, only in a certain bracket. And my personal belief is that work should pay, not the government (i.e. the tax payer).
    If you're on UC and paying Income Tax and NI then yes it is 75p of every extra pound they earn. Which means people don't bother seeking to earn more money and instead rely upon their benefits.

    If your personal belief is that work should pay instead of the taxpayer then why would you want an effective 75% tax rate that means people rely upon the taxpayer and don't seek extra wages from work?

    Cutting tax rates means people can get more from work and need less from the taxpayer. How can you object to that?
    Every extra pound? Even if they earn 30K a year? Surely not. I understand there is a lack of incentive to increase hours if you are losing a significant chunk of income, I just don't know what the fair answer is?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,553

    Omnium said:

    This is the sort of seat that probably had a strong aversion to Corbyn. I'd expect that the LDs will lose some votes back to a Starmer led Labour.

    Still likely to be close-run though.

    Strong aversion to Corbyn would have kept some Tories onside. With Starmer in place they could risk an LD vote.
    As for Labour voters, probably not much more to squeeze, but the 'wasted vote' argument would apply.
    Absence of Corbyn is the crucial consideration, I think.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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%?
    Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.

    If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
    Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.

    But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
    To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
    Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.

    It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
    Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.

    My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
    If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.

    There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
    It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
    The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.

    If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?

    Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377
    Must be a good bet for the LDs. They do not of course need to win over any Tories at all; it just needs about 10% of erstwhile Tory voters to decide not to bother this time. (E.g. those for whom 'getting Brexit done' was the main motivator last time, those imapcted by the NI hike, etc. etc.)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,631
    One would hope so.

    The counter-argument is that the 2019 result was a one-off generated by all the publicity around Brexit and with the LibDems pulling out all the stops to achieve a decapitation. They’re not going to be starting the next campaign from a base only a few votes short, and will have to repeat the same effort as last time just to get in contention. And with little other non-Tory vote to squeeze.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377

    Reshuffle

    #SavePriti

    What about #SaveUsFromPriti ?
  • FPT

    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.
    OK. Take a breath. And imagine that conversation on the doorstep between a Tory candidate with a voter in that position. "I know that you are being effectively taxed at 75% because we are taking 75p of every pound you earn. But it is not a 75% tax rate and Labour are being slightly dishonest saying that it is".
    They are not being taxed at 75% though are they? And it wouldn't be 75 p of every extra pound they earn, only in a certain bracket. And my personal belief is that work should pay, not the government (i.e. the tax payer).
    If you're on UC and paying Income Tax and NI then yes it is 75p of every extra pound they earn. Which means people don't bother seeking to earn more money and instead rely upon their benefits.

    If your personal belief is that work should pay instead of the taxpayer then why would you want an effective 75% tax rate that means people rely upon the taxpayer and don't seek extra wages from work?

    Cutting tax rates means people can get more from work and need less from the taxpayer. How can you object to that?
    Every extra pound? Even if they earn 30K a year? Surely not. I understand there is a lack of incentive to increase hours if you are losing a significant chunk of income, I just don't know what the fair answer is?
    For someone working for minimum wage then working overtime, or getting a %age pay rise is more achievable generally than going from minimum to 30k overnight.

    The fair answer is to not tax anyone a marginal tax rate over 50% of what they earn. Unless we're going to tax the richest 75% tax rates (which I'd completely and vehemently oppose) why the heck should we tax the poorest that?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,931
    FPT - I've just topped up on Kemi for next Tory leader at 50/1 with Betway.

    Only let me have £8.41 though.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,553
    edited September 15

    Must be a good bet for the LDs. They do not of course need to win over any Tories at all; it just needs about 10% of erstwhile Tory voters to decide not to bother this time. (E.g. those for whom 'getting Brexit done' was the main motivator last time, those imapcted by the NI hike, etc. etc.)

    These are remainer seats. I think a lot of these voters went Tory through gritted teeth because they genuinely feared Corbyn could win.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,931
    Sean_F said:

    This has to be an excellent prospect for the Lib Dems. But, they'd need to win over probably 750 - 1,000 votes directly from the Conservatives. The big danger for them at the next election is chasing too many targets, They'll need to focus on just about a dozen or so.

    I think it will be tax and spend policy that will pose more of a threat to Conservatives in those seats than post-Brexit tremors, although it will almost certainly be blamed on that.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,379
    Out of the last 150 polls:


    - The Tories have led in 148
    - Labour have led in 1
    - Labour/Tories tied in 1

    People said ‘if Labour got rid of Corbyn and replaced him with any other leader they’d be ahead by 20 points’

    Same people now saying Labour under SKS is on the right track when they are stuck behind an unpopular mid term Government and SKS shows no signs of having the requisite skills or ability to win.

    Time for KotN before its too late

    By Election required in safe Lab seat (if such a thing exists)

    One poster on here claims the Tories were ahead by 20pts 3 months ago (which is an outright lie) to support his narrative of progress. The reality is Lab are no nearer now than they were in Jan 2021 there has been no progress just different shades of shitness
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 14,947
    This won't be a decapitation strategy if Raaaaab is on the back benches by teatime.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377
    edited September 15

    Must be a good bet for the LDs. They do not of course need to win over any Tories at all; it just needs about 10% of erstwhile Tory voters to decide not to bother this time. (E.g. those for whom 'getting Brexit done' was the main motivator last time, those imapcted by the NI hike, etc. etc.)

    These are remainer seats. I think a lot of these voters went Tory through gritted teeth because they genuinely feared Corbyn could win.
    40%+ Leavers though. I'd expect the majority of Tory voters to have been leavers. Many would never vote LD of course but many might just not bother to vote next time now that 'Brexit is done'.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 43,597

    The poor, poor, poor people who have the misfortune to live in Esher & Walton.

    Long ago, far away, I once lived in a LibDem target seat. Never again. It was miserable.

    Hundreds of leaflets, sometime multiple deliveries each day as election approaches.

    Major recycling problems for householders from the sheer scale of the leaflet tonnage.

    Lib Dem activists disturbing the peace at all hours. Canvassers who look 12 years old, probably are 8 years old and have a mental age of 4 trying to talk serious politics with you :)

    Jeez. And I was voting LibDem in those dark days. And it was feckin annoying.

    If I lived in Esher & Walton, I'd move.

    like Raab is going to do?
  • Out of the last 150 polls:


    - The Tories have led in 148
    - Labour have led in 1
    - Labour/Tories tied in 1

    People said ‘if Labour got rid of Corbyn and replaced him with any other leader they’d be ahead by 20 points’

    Same people now saying Labour under SKS is on the right track when they are stuck behind an unpopular mid term Government and SKS shows no signs of having the requisite skills or ability to win.

    Time for KotN before its too late

    By Election required in safe Lab seat (if such a thing exists)

    One poster on here claims the Tories were ahead by 20pts 3 months ago (which is an outright lie) to support his narrative of progress. The reality is Lab are no nearer now than they were in Jan 2021 there has been no progress just different shades of shitness

    Yep. On the day that Worzel digs his government's own hell pit having been shish-kebabbed by SKS, with the debate on UC cuts, it really is the right day to attack the real enemy - the Labour party.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,553

    The poor, poor, poor people who have the misfortune to live in Esher & Walton.

    Long ago, far away, I once lived in a LibDem target seat. Never again. It was miserable.

    Hundreds of leaflets, sometime multiple deliveries each day as election approaches.

    Major recycling problems for householders from the sheer scale of the leaflet tonnage.

    Lib Dem activists disturbing the peace at all hours. Canvassers who look 12 years old, probably are 8 years old and have a mental age of 4 trying to talk serious politics with you :)

    Jeez. And I was voting LibDem in those dark days. And it was feckin annoying.

    If I lived in Esher & Walton, I'd move.

    But at least you could get potholes filled?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377

    Out of the last 150 polls:


    - The Tories have led in 148
    - Labour have led in 1
    - Labour/Tories tied in 1

    People said ‘if Labour got rid of Corbyn and replaced him with any other leader they’d be ahead by 20 points’

    Same people now saying Labour under SKS is on the right track when they are stuck behind an unpopular mid term Government and SKS shows no signs of having the requisite skills or ability to win.

    Time for KotN before its too late

    By Election required in safe Lab seat (if such a thing exists)

    One poster on here claims the Tories were ahead by 20pts 3 months ago (which is an outright lie) to support his narrative of progress. The reality is Lab are no nearer now than they were in Jan 2021 there has been no progress just different shades of shitness

    KotN?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 638

    Out of the last 150 polls:


    - The Tories have led in 148
    - Labour have led in 1
    - Labour/Tories tied in 1

    People said ‘if Labour got rid of Corbyn and replaced him with any other leader they’d be ahead by 20 points’

    Same people now saying Labour under SKS is on the right track when they are stuck behind an unpopular mid term Government and SKS shows no signs of having the requisite skills or ability to win.

    Time for KotN before its too late

    By Election required in safe Lab seat (if such a thing exists)

    One poster on here claims the Tories were ahead by 20pts 3 months ago (which is an outright lie) to support his narrative of progress. The reality is Lab are no nearer now than they were in Jan 2021 there has been no progress just different shades of shitness

    KotN?
    King of the North
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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%?
    Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.

    If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
    Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.

    But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
    To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
    Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.

    It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
    Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.

    My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
    If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.

    There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
    It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
    The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.

    If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?

    Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
    Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.

    Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
  • MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    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:

    https://theconversation.com/tuna-or-not-tuna-the-real-cost-of-taking-a-fish-out-of-water-2825

    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
    That depends on what the beavers do to everything else.

    See UK / deer.
    Brenda's Beaver Needs A Barber
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSHd2rnkRTE
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,631
    What’s happening to the centre-Right in France is happening across the West. We have become so used to hearing about the decline of the traditional parties of the centre-Left that we have failed to notice the rot setting in on the centre-Right too. Conservatism is in crisis.

    Looking at the decline of the mainstream parties of the centre-Left, it’s easy to identify one over-riding cause: the demographic decline and political alienation of the traditional working class. But for the mainstream parties of the centre-Right, the causes are more complicated and country-specific — the sudden rise of Emmanuel Macron in France, for instance, or the rapid decline of religiosity in the Republic of Ireland. Still, beyond these local factors, there are two threads that are common to the international crisis of conservatism.

    The first is reform — or rather the lack of it.

    The second thing that has gone wrong is that, in place of reform, conservative parties have offered something emptier: the politics of sensation. Instead of working quietly and cautiously towards change, conservatives now offer the feeling of change.

    There’s an obvious lesson here for Boris Johnson. Though he’s delivered Brexit, he now has to deliver all the other things he said would happen after Brexit.

    https://unherd.com/2021/09/what-boris-can-learn-from-barnier/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=a412131e7d&mc_eid=836634e34b
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    The Prime Minister's Official Spokesman has formally denied that the prime minister consulted his wife Carrie Johnson about the reshuffle

    Dominic Cummings, in the meantime, is already branding it the 'Carrie Reshuffle'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1438114368718348296
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    The leader of the Pilot Whale Killing society in the Faroes (a real person) has now said the huge slaughter on Sunday ‘was a disaster, because these days everyone has cameras, and now the world will pressure us to stop the hunts completely’

    So being a bit ranty online works? Good

    Apparently one of the ‘problems’ was they herded too many (because these days the mega-rich Faroese all have jet skis, superfast speedboats, brilliant sonar etc) so there were far too many to kill efficiently or quickly. Many lingered, awaiting their deaths, crushed in the bay. There also weren’t enough skilled dolphin-killers, so amateurs had a go, and got it wrong, leaving the dolphins mutilated but alive.

    And then they had so many dolphin carcasses, they simply dumped them in the sea


    https://twitter.com/cruelabattoirs/status/1437913181234606086?s=21
  • AslanAslan Posts: 559
    One of those dangerous UKIP fantasies.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58570505

    > European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said the EU should seek to beef up its military capabilities to confront security threats and global crises.

    > She told the European Parliament she believed EU military forces "will be part of the solution".

    No wonder Nick Clegg fled politics, given how all his claims get shown up. Ah well, at least he did maintained his principles and joined a company that believes in egalitarianism and democracy.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/facebook-xcheck-content-moderation-rules-b1919503.html

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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%?
    Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.

    If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
    Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.

    But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
    To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
    Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.

    It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
    Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.

    My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
    If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.

    There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
    It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
    The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.

    If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?

    Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
    Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.

    Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
    Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.

    UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.

    Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 537

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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%?
    Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.

    If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
    Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.

    But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
    To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
    Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.

    It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
    Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.

    My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
    If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.

    There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
    It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
    The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.

    If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?

    Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
    One possible partial solution to this corundum could be to not tax overtime. Work 40 hours, get taxed/benefit tapered etc on it as normal.
    Work further hours, you can be paid for them at the same rate as the first 40 hours, no tax to pay. Additional overtime pay (so the 1/2 of time and a half or similar) gets taxed at your marginal rate (thus preventing abusive schemes where overtime is paid at 10x regular rate etc).

    No idea what this would cost, and I'm also aware that 16 hours a week is a magic number for some benefits, but I think the general principle that if you work extra hours, it's your money to keep should be sound.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,956
    I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    Raab about to get his jotters
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 638
    Pulpstar said:

    I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
    When prices are regulated, and the service is all the same, what is the point of "competition"?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984

    FPT

    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.
    OK. Take a breath. And imagine that conversation on the doorstep between a Tory candidate with a voter in that position. "I know that you are being effectively taxed at 75% because we are taking 75p of every pound you earn. But it is not a 75% tax rate and Labour are being slightly dishonest saying that it is".
    They are not being taxed at 75% though are they? And it wouldn't be 75 p of every extra pound they earn, only in a certain bracket. And my personal belief is that work should pay, not the government (i.e. the tax payer).
    If you're on UC and paying Income Tax and NI then yes it is 75p of every extra pound they earn. Which means people don't bother seeking to earn more money and instead rely upon their benefits.

    If your personal belief is that work should pay instead of the taxpayer then why would you want an effective 75% tax rate that means people rely upon the taxpayer and don't seek extra wages from work?

    Cutting tax rates means people can get more from work and need less from the taxpayer. How can you object to that?
    Every extra pound? Even if they earn 30K a year? Surely not. I understand there is a lack of incentive to increase hours if you are losing a significant chunk of income, I just don't know what the fair answer is?
    Make benefits taxable and increase the amount given by 20%. The issue we have is that non-taxable income is being replaced by taxable income so you're being hit twice. If taxable income was being replaced by other taxable income there would be no marginal rate issues and people would always be better off taking on more work and we'd get rid of the stupid disincentives to only work for a certain number of hours.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915

    kle4 said:

    Raducanu had the NYSE on her NY bucket list. Might not be a lefty!

    She posted a flag heavy picture, which politicians show us means she is either a populist right wing demagogue or an insecure lefty traitor to the socialist cause.
    I thought it had been established on here that she is in fact a leading light in the Bromley LDs?
    I think the big two regard LD support as indicative of an identity problem.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377
    Pulpstar said:

    I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
    The neoliberal ideal of a competitive market for everything is dying a long slow painful death. At last.

    For energy, last time I looked there was only one supply coming into our house. The 'market' is an artifice.

    How is it efficient to have savvy consumers being switched from one seller to another every year (with all the admin, call centre support etc. that that requires) whilst the non-savvy, vulnerable and cant-be-arsed subsidise those of us who switch?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,489
    Scott_xP said:

    Raab about to get his jotters

    Dominic Raab in the Commons, on his way to see PM now

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1438116567670218758?s=20

    Sackings in the Commons
    Promotions in No.10
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,648
    edited September 15
    Leon said:

    The leader of the Pilot Whale Killing society in the Faroes (a real person) has now said the huge slaughter on Sunday ‘was a disaster, because these days everyone has cameras, and now the world will pressure us to stop the hunts completely’

    So being a bit ranty online works? Good

    Apparently one of the ‘problems’ was they herded too many (because these days the mega-rich Faroese all have jet skis, superfast speedboats, brilliant sonar etc) so there were far too many to kill efficiently or quickly. Many lingered, awaiting their deaths, crushed in the bay. There also weren’t enough skilled dolphin-killers, so amateurs had a go, and got it wrong, leaving the dolphins mutilated but alive.

    And then they had so many dolphin carcasses, they simply dumped them in the sea


    https://twitter.com/cruelabattoirs/status/1437913181234606086?s=21

    Personally, I'd like those road protesters to pick themselves up from the motorway and harangue the Faroe Islanders instead. I'd arm them so they can shoot holes in their boats.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    Scott_xP said:

    The Prime Minister's Official Spokesman has formally denied that the prime minister consulted his wife Carrie Johnson about the reshuffle

    Dominic Cummings, in the meantime, is already branding it the 'Carrie Reshuffle'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1438114368718348296

    I'd be astonished if Boris didn't mention bits of it to his wife. 'Consultation' might be something else.

    But Dom seems to have a personal problem with Carrie and it undermines other criticisms he makes.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,956

    Pulpstar said:

    I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
    The neoliberal ideal of a competitive market for everything is dying a long slow painful death. At last.

    For energy, last time I looked there was only one supply coming into our house. The 'market' is an artifice.

    How is it efficient to have savvy consumers being switched from one seller to another every year (with all the admin, call centre support etc. that that requires) whilst the non-savvy, vulnerable and cant-be-arsed subsidise those of us who switch?
    I'm one of those frequent switchers but the benefit is being quickly reduced. Wasn't worth me changing tariff last time I looked, need to update meter readings this evening though..
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,870
    edited September 15
    "Gavin Williamson to Northern Ireland" ?

    Hasn't Northern Ireland suffered enough at the hands of this wretched government?
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,857
    Of course, the LDs could win the seat but far far from being assured because:

    1. Dominic Raab has upped his game locally conspicuously since December 2019. He's now far more visible in the constituency whereas his LibDem opponent is no where to be seen apart from periodic FB effusions.

    2. The Boundary changes should help him a little.

    3. The May County and Borough elections must have been disappointing for the LibDems - the Conservatives' majority was solid. However, against that, they did gain the Cobham ward in the by-election. May 2022 will be an important signal.

    4. Paradoxically, DR's chances of retaining the seat may be strengthened if he's moved to a less senior and high profile role or dropped altogether. The cache of ousting a senior figure will be hugely reduced. So watch this reshuffle!!!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,379
    mwadams said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
    When prices are regulated, and the service is all the same, what is the point of "competition"?
    All hail Jeremy Corbyn.

    We are about to be even deeper into Labours 2019 manifesto especially after the reshuffle where Boris surrounds himself with fellow Socialists!!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984

    Pulpstar said:

    I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
    The neoliberal ideal of a competitive market for everything is dying a long slow painful death. At last.

    For energy, last time I looked there was only one supply coming into our house. The 'market' is an artifice.

    How is it efficient to have savvy consumers being switched from one seller to another every year (with all the admin, call centre support etc. that that requires) whilst the non-savvy, vulnerable and cant-be-arsed subsidise those of us who switch?
    What a load of crap, the market was working and then the government introduced a price cap which destroyed the free market. Now it's failing.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,489
    Raab just left foreign office via back door bag on should!!

    https://twitter.com/PoliticalPics/status/1438115809117757442?s=20
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited September 15
    FF43 said:

    "Gavin Williamson to Northern Ireland" ?

    Hasn't Northern Ireland suffered enough at the hands of this wretched government?

    Given the current state of play you would think its needs a smart individual who can forsee issues ahead of time and be able to smooth them over....

    I couldn't think of much worse individual that than one that didn't even see any of the issues coming with covid and exams...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    The leader of the Pilot Whale Killing society in the Faroes (a real person) has now said the huge slaughter on Sunday ‘was a disaster, because these days everyone has cameras, and now the world will pressure us to stop the hunts completely’

    So being a bit ranty online works? Good

    Apparently one of the ‘problems’ was they herded too many (because these days the mega-rich Faroese all have jet skis, superfast speedboats, brilliant sonar etc) so there were far too many to kill efficiently or quickly. Many lingered, awaiting their deaths, crushed in the bay. There also weren’t enough skilled dolphin-killers, so amateurs had a go, and got it wrong, leaving the dolphins mutilated but alive.

    And then they had so many dolphin carcasses, they simply dumped them in the sea


    https://twitter.com/cruelabattoirs/status/1437913181234606086?s=21

    Personally, I'd like those road protesters to pick themselves up from the motorway and harangue the Faroe Islanders instead. I'd arm them so they can shoot holes in their boats.
    There is a compromise here. The Faroese justify these massacres because it’s a tradition ‘dating from the 9th century’ and it makes them feel ‘manly’

    Well then, force them to do it traditionally, not with satellite navigation, jet-skis and power-drills

    Let them go out and catch dolphins in tiny leather coracles, with harpoons made from bone. Presumably they will catch half a dozen, and maybe a couple of Faroese will drown in the process. That would be truly ‘manly’ and then we’d see how long the ‘tradition’ endures
  • Blimey. Tory MP close to me attacking Labour "scare stories" against UC before he votes to cut it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,416
    Leon said:

    The leader of the Pilot Whale Killing society in the Faroes (a real person) has now said the huge slaughter on Sunday ‘was a disaster, because these days everyone has cameras, and now the world will pressure us to stop the hunts completely’

    So being a bit ranty online works? Good

    You need to get it to Carrie Johnson's attention and she'll make sure an invasion taskforce is assembled.
  • kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The Prime Minister's Official Spokesman has formally denied that the prime minister consulted his wife Carrie Johnson about the reshuffle

    Dominic Cummings, in the meantime, is already branding it the 'Carrie Reshuffle'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1438114368718348296

    I'd be astonished if Boris didn't mention bits of it to his wife. 'Consultation' might be something else.

    But Dom seems to have a personal problem with Carrie and it undermines other criticisms he makes.
    Big Dom unhealthy obsession with Mrs Johnson reminds me of the old Tim bot back in the day with a couple of female posters on here.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984
    We must be the only country in the world that incentivises people to stay on benefits by making incremental work pay so poorly.

    I can't think of another advanced economy that has such a stupid system of in-work benefits that effectively put a cap on hours worked by making the marginal rates beyond that number unpalatable.

    There's got to be massive economic potential tied up in getting part time workers to take on more hours, especially during a labour shortage. A 70% marginal rate isn't going to do that.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,379

    Out of the last 150 polls:


    - The Tories have led in 148
    - Labour have led in 1
    - Labour/Tories tied in 1

    People said ‘if Labour got rid of Corbyn and replaced him with any other leader they’d be ahead by 20 points’

    Same people now saying Labour under SKS is on the right track when they are stuck behind an unpopular mid term Government and SKS shows no signs of having the requisite skills or ability to win.

    Time for KotN before its too late

    By Election required in safe Lab seat (if such a thing exists)

    One poster on here claims the Tories were ahead by 20pts 3 months ago (which is an outright lie) to support his narrative of progress. The reality is Lab are no nearer now than they were in Jan 2021 there has been no progress just different shades of shitness

    shish-kebabbed by SKS
    Shish kebabs made from dead sheep.

    As in like being savaged by a dead sheep (SKS)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984

    Leon said:

    The leader of the Pilot Whale Killing society in the Faroes (a real person) has now said the huge slaughter on Sunday ‘was a disaster, because these days everyone has cameras, and now the world will pressure us to stop the hunts completely’

    So being a bit ranty online works? Good

    You need to get it to Carrie Johnson's attention and she'll make sure an invasion taskforce is assembled.
    Yup, get Carrie to take notice and suddenly the UK will put sanctions up on the Faroe Islands.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,244
    Just joining - is Raab def out?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 183

    Raab just left foreign office via back door bag on should!!

    https://twitter.com/PoliticalPics/status/1438115809117757442?s=20

    Liz Truss is apparently moving. To Foreign Office?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    The leader of the Pilot Whale Killing society in the Faroes (a real person) has now said the huge slaughter on Sunday ‘was a disaster, because these days everyone has cameras, and now the world will pressure us to stop the hunts completely’

    So being a bit ranty online works? Good

    You need to get it to Carrie Johnson's attention and she'll make sure an invasion taskforce is assembled.
    Yup, get Carrie to take notice and suddenly the UK will put sanctions up on the Faroe Islands.
    I’d be surprised if she hasn’t noticed. This issue is exploding on social media

    Expect the SBS are heading north right now
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,379
    Therese (2 hours Coffey) trying to defend cutting the take home pay of Care Workers to pay for more Care Workers
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,524
    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    The leader of the Pilot Whale Killing society in the Faroes (a real person) has now said the huge slaughter on Sunday ‘was a disaster, because these days everyone has cameras, and now the world will pressure us to stop the hunts completely’

    So being a bit ranty online works? Good

    Apparently one of the ‘problems’ was they herded too many (because these days the mega-rich Faroese all have jet skis, superfast speedboats, brilliant sonar etc) so there were far too many to kill efficiently or quickly. Many lingered, awaiting their deaths, crushed in the bay. There also weren’t enough skilled dolphin-killers, so amateurs had a go, and got it wrong, leaving the dolphins mutilated but alive.

    And then they had so many dolphin carcasses, they simply dumped them in the sea


    https://twitter.com/cruelabattoirs/status/1437913181234606086?s=21

    Personally, I'd like those road protesters to pick themselves up from the motorway and harangue the Faroe Islanders instead. I'd arm them so they can shoot holes in their boats.
    There is a compromise here. The Faroese justify these massacres because it’s a tradition ‘dating from the 9th century’ and it makes them feel ‘manly’

    Well then, force them to do it traditionally, not with satellite navigation, jet-skis and power-drills

    Let them go out and catch dolphins in tiny leather coracles, with harpoons made from bone. Presumably they will catch half a dozen, and maybe a couple of Faroese will drown in the process. That would be truly ‘manly’ and then we’d see how long the ‘tradition’ endures
    Using jet skis is like bullfighting with an AK47.

    What does the Danish government think of this? They subsidise the Faroes, don't they?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    Cyclefree said:


    The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.

    The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.

    One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.

    I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.

    And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.

    So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".

    This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.

    Your third para I've always found a striking point, and an example of us going backwards in recent years on stereotypes.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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%?
    Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.

    If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
    Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.

    But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
    To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
    Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.

    It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
    Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.

    My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
    If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.

    There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
    It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
    The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.

    If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?

    Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
    Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.

    Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
    Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.

    UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.

    Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
    That doesn't make sense. You're only entitled to working tax credits if you work at least 16 hours/week.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,648
    Cyclefree said:

    The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.

    The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.

    One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.

    I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.

    And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.

    So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".

    This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.

    Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,082
    The higher taxes and prices are the cost of furlough and lockdown. Almost everyone on here cheered both. What could do for the govt is people rumbling that unlocking the youngsters didn’t cause the pain Sir Keir said it would. Then they might start asking if everything/everyone actually needed to be closed/locked down for so long at such expense.

    But no one opposed it, so who to vote for instead?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,244
    Cyclefree said:

    The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.

    The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.

    One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.

    I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.

    And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.

    So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".

    This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.

    Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?

    But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.

    The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    Gav defenestrated
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,648
    Scott_xP said:

    Gav defenestrated

    Sounds painful
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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%?
    Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.

    If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
    Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.

    But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
    To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
    Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.

    It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
    Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.

    My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
    If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.

    There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
    It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
    The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.

    If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?

    Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
    Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.

    Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
    Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.

    UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.

    Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
    That doesn't make sense. You're only entitled to working tax credits if you work at least 16 hours/week.
    It also acts as an effective cap because tax credit withdrawal is pretty steep once a person qualifies, especially if they've got kids. There was a point in time where the marginal withdrawal rate worked out to 85% from hours 17-20 and then 75% from hours 20-24 or something like that. I think with UC it's more like 70% and 60%. Still stupidly high though and a major disincentive to work more if someone only gets to keep 30% for each additional hour worked.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,648
    isam said:

    The higher taxes and prices are the cost of furlough and lockdown. Almost everyone on here cheered both. What could do for the govt is people rumbling that unlocking the youngsters didn’t cause the pain Sir Keir said it would. Then they might start asking if everything/everyone actually needed to be closed/locked down for so long at such expense.

    But no one opposed it, so who to vote for instead?

    The LibDems should always have been in that space.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,489
    Cyclefree said:

    The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need. .

    This strikes me as reminiscent of the PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) scandal of the 1970s (NOT that Trans people are paedophiles!) but that many well intentioned people then saw paedophiles as a persecuted minority like gay and lesbian people had been and this was a "logical extension" of a fight for their rights - ignoring the people affected by that campaign - i.e. children then, women now.

  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,465
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
    The neoliberal ideal of a competitive market for everything is dying a long slow painful death. At last.

    For energy, last time I looked there was only one supply coming into our house. The 'market' is an artifice.

    How is it efficient to have savvy consumers being switched from one seller to another every year (with all the admin, call centre support etc. that that requires) whilst the non-savvy, vulnerable and cant-be-arsed subsidise those of us who switch?
    I'm one of those frequent switchers but the benefit is being quickly reduced. Wasn't worth me changing tariff last time I looked, need to update meter readings this evening though..
    I currently don't seem to have a supplier. A new tenant moved in upstairs, applied to move to Octopus, and yesterday I got a final statement from them. Seems they have got the two flats and their associated meters mixed up and assumed I am moving out. I have now emailed them with pictures of the meters, confirming which flat they belong to, let's see how they sort it out.
  • Therese (2 hours Coffey) trying to defend cutting the take home pay of Care Workers to pay for more Care Workers

    To be fair that is one way to manage a budget!

    But then let's not pretend that 2 hours makes up the cut.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,813
    Pulpstar said:

    I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
    I think there are three aspects to the electrical power economy:
    1) Generation.
    2) Nationwide distribution
    3) Supply to market

    Generation can be made from a whole host of sources; traditionally coal, but now nuclear, gas, wind, solar and interconnector. There are so many that competition and innovation can be rife, and it seems sensible to be in the private sector - albeit with subsidies for some.

    The distribution is via the National Grid. This is an area where innovation is generally slow, and competition very difficult to put in place.

    The supply to market is done via a series of companies, some very prone to rises in the wholesale prices. Competition is rife, but room for innovation is relatively low.

    This is all made more complex by some companies having fingers in both the generation and supply markets, with distribution done via the NG.

    (Someone will doubtless correct me if this is wrong...)

    So the way I see it, generation should remain private. Distribution could be private or state-owned; I don't think it makes much of a difference. The supply to market at the moment is messy, and I don't think people as a whole benefit from the current structure. It needs a drastic restructuring - either nationalisation or something else.

    But sadly I don't see much of anything we do actually decreasing prices by any significant margin.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,185
    A good reminder in the header of the Advance party, who they are, and how they campaigned at the last election.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,915
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.

    The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.

    One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.

    I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.

    And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.

    So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".

    This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.

    Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?

    But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.

    The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
    It's very male by poster ratio.
  • Has Cummings joined the English independence movement?
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    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%?
    Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.

    If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
    Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.

    But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
    To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
    Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.

    It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
    Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.

    My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
    If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.

    There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
    It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
    The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.

    If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?

    Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
    Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.

    Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
    Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.

    UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.

    Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
    That doesn't make sense. You're only entitled to working tax credits if you work at least 16 hours/week.
    Yes which inevitably gets interpreted by the people on it as they have to work exactly 16 hours. Or they get paid cash in hand above that and keep claiming the benefits and don't pay any tax.

    We hear from people on here regularly about salary sacrifice etc done to avoid going into a 60% tax rate. Why would you expect any difference in behaviour with a 75% tax rate?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,489
    It has been a privilege to serve as Education Secretary since 2019. Despite the challenges of the global pandemic, I’m particularly proud of the transformational reforms I’ve led in Post 16 education: in further education colleges, our Skills agenda, apprenticeships and more.
    This programme will create better life opportunities for pupils and students for many years to come. I look forward to continuing to support the Prime Minster and the government.


    https://twitter.com/GavinWilliamson/status/1438120945013645316?s=20
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    Ministerial source: “@pritipatel not looking happy”. I simply pass on
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,832
    Gavin Williamson now knows where his body is buried. #reshuffle
    https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1438123558589407238
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,416
    edited September 15
    TOPPING said:

    But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.

    The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.

    People like Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova and Joanna Cherry?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,244
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.

    The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.

    One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.

    I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.

    And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.

    So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".

    This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.

    Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?

    But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.

    The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
    It's very male by poster ratio.
    Right. As far as you are aware. Is @kle4 a particularly male or female posting name?

    But yes I can believe it.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,008
    On topic: the answer is "probably not".
    My bet is the extra votes attracted by the LDs in this constituency will be very, very soft and almost certain to leak away. 2019 was an election where the number of LD votes increased by 60%. That was certainly largely driven by hardcore remain sentiment being attracted to the "bollocks to Brexit" messaging. That moment has passed. And LD 2019 switchers will by definition have experience of not voting LD in previous elections, so voting for another party/staying at home will not be beyond imagination. Plus the increased vote and vote share was shown to be quite ineffective across the country, which fewer seats won. So the national sense of momentum is blunted to say the least.
    There may be some local tactical switching to get rid of the Tory, but is Raab really that hated compared so some of his colleagues? If he stands, I'd back Raab to survive with an increased majority, even at short odds.
  • mwadams said:

    There's also the separate question of LD defence of the 4 marginals in Scotland. That should not be taken lightly.

    They should be ok if they are ruthless and brutal. Throw the useless Edinburgh MP to the wolves and forget regaining East Dunbartonshire. Then they have a fighting chance of holding the other three.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    The leader of the Pilot Whale Killing society in the Faroes (a real person) has now said the huge slaughter on Sunday ‘was a disaster, because these days everyone has cameras, and now the world will pressure us to stop the hunts completely’

    So being a bit ranty online works? Good

    Apparently one of the ‘problems’ was they herded too many (because these days the mega-rich Faroese all have jet skis, superfast speedboats, brilliant sonar etc) so there were far too many to kill efficiently or quickly. Many lingered, awaiting their deaths, crushed in the bay. There also weren’t enough skilled dolphin-killers, so amateurs had a go, and got it wrong, leaving the dolphins mutilated but alive.

    And then they had so many dolphin carcasses, they simply dumped them in the sea


    https://twitter.com/cruelabattoirs/status/1437913181234606086?s=21

    Personally, I'd like those road protesters to pick themselves up from the motorway and harangue the Faroe Islanders instead. I'd arm them so they can shoot holes in their boats.
    There is a compromise here. The Faroese justify these massacres because it’s a tradition ‘dating from the 9th century’ and it makes them feel ‘manly’

    Well then, force them to do it traditionally, not with satellite navigation, jet-skis and power-drills

    Let them go out and catch dolphins in tiny leather coracles, with harpoons made from bone. Presumably they will catch half a dozen, and maybe a couple of Faroese will drown in the process. That would be truly ‘manly’ and then we’d see how long the ‘tradition’ endures
    Using jet skis is like bullfighting with an AK47.

    What does the Danish government think of this? They subsidise the Faroes, don't they?
    Yes, at least bullfighting takes real bravery, matadors are often wounded, and sometimes die. And it is done as it was always done, with a sword. Not a fucking flame-thrower

    There is no bravery in the dolphin hunts. The dolphins mostly aren’t eaten (the flesh is poisonous). The dolphins aren’t vermin. It seems to be an unusually pure example of blood lust, multiplied grotesquely by modern technology

    Apparently the Danes don’t like it, but can’t do much legally. The Faroes are virtually independent and may take the final step. The Faroes are also extremely wealthy - they have a Swiss level of GDP per capita (hence the amazing tunnels). They don’t need danish subsidy.

    But social media is much bigger and nastier than Denmark. This could really damage their tourist trade. Shame





  • TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.

    The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.

    One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.

    I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.

    And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.

    So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".

    This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.

    Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?

    But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.

    The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
    It's very male by poster ratio.
    Right. As far as you are aware. Is @kle4 a particularly male or female posting name?

    But yes I can believe it.
    It's worth noting that when people have done mock Cabinets using posters here, or mock TV panelists for a GB News style channel etc that they've frequently been 100% male. Or had Cyclefree named as token female.
This discussion has been closed.