Categories
Options
All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand – politicalbetting.com
All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand – politicalbetting.com
?EXCLUSIVE: Alex Salmond today tells Humza Yousaf that to continue as Scottish first minister he must agree an electoral pact which would see the SNP step aside in some Holyrood seats ?? https://t.co/XHIwWS133O
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There would have been time for such a word
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow...
He, as 'tis thought, by self and violent hands
Took off his political career.
The SKY News interview highlights how awful he is when challenged .
Fortunately it’s not all like that. Some vines just mildly frost-burnt.
But that can never be.
Who can impress the forest, bid the tree unfix his earth-bound root?
Will Sunak ever answer a question?
*Birnam Wood advances an inch further to Dunsinane*
Mr. 679, if the Yorkshire Question Time is held during the General Election I suspect Sunak might find himself thoroughly eviscerated by the public.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
I had very good sleep last night and woke up early and ready to go. I've already walked over 10km, the sun's come out and I'm smiling
I dozed off yesterday thinking about @Leon 's question about boredom
I found a good part of the answer under a bridge this morning
I can understand why Unionists never liked him but the way Nationalists have changed their opinion of him seems somewhat Orwellian.
Phrased carefully because he was after all acquitted of any *criminal* acts.
Yousaf reminds me of Jim Hacker. Not ill-meaning, but not there because anyone really thought he was up to the job.
It's just that one of his rivals for the leadership would split the party within a month.
And the other within a week.
His pimping for Russia on Russia Today didn't help either.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114884234054
Well - what could go wrong?
Labour politicians already tweeting this image. Sums up Humza Yousaf’s problem.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1784493110518571478/photo/1
Now maybe Sturgeon and Yusuf will became the Aaronson and Rutherford of the SNP but I don't get that impression yet.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by a dramatic decline in military spending. The UK, which was consuming 4-5% of its GDP on defence in the final stretch of the confrontation with the USSR, now devotes a smidgeon over 2%. So Rishi Sunak is right – not a phrase I or anyone else writes very often – when he says that the UK needs to become more serious about protecting its security and vital national interests.
Both the Tory and Labour leaders say that defence spending needs to rise to 2.5% of GDP. Neither offer any guarantees about when this will happen and both are avoiding having a frank conversation with voters about the price of security. Those wanting to see the UK putting more into defence face several challenges. The first is the lack of public enthusiasm for the idea. The public will also need persuading that bucks for bangs will be used wisely. This will be hard because the Ministry of Defence has such an atrocious record of repeated and costly procurement failures.
It is an exaggeration to say that we will have to choose between being a welfare state and a warfare state. The UK was both during the Cold War. It is true to say that if defence spending is going to rise, something else will have to give. Absent a miraculous surge in growth, the fundamental choice will be either higher taxes (at a time when many voters think they are being taxed quite enough already, thank you) or less in the kitty for public services and social support (at a time when most voters think we need to be spending more on them).
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more.
If it were to be before the Westminster GE it could be very interesting indeed. Its hard to imagine a swing to the SNP, but a Unionist Lab led government supported by the Scottish Tories would put a cat amongst the pigeons.
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Anyway his brother in law taints by association.
Even if unfair.
It's now nearly May. And they still haven't come up.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/28/stormy-weather-biden-skewers-trump-at-white-house-correspondents-dinner
I think they've missed an opportunity to do something more creative. They could have promised a one off hike in the pension followed by a return to indexing to wages.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Most of them are at least potty trained.
Streeting really struggling to justify the triple lock on Sky
Sure our depleted armed forces have been run down badly by the current government, and are lumbered with multiple white elephant projects, so I am open to spending more on them. It should be directed though at what threats we face and what equipment and personnel we need in order to counter those threats, not some number plucked from the air.
In reality increasing taxes on property is the only viable source.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/28/for-migrants-deterrence-doesnt-deter-cruelty-not-compassion-rishi-sunak
https://yougov.co.uk/economy/articles/37456-britons-wouldnt-ditch-pensions-triple-lock-rule
I suspect the only way around it is going to be some technical shenanigans to loosen the criteria but keep the words.
I was really surprised by that as it's felt cold and miserable all month.
I'm guessing we'll have a hot dry summer now.
So how exactly is domestic property to be taxed? This is a genuine question BTW.
There is a lot of nominal wealth tied up in property but it is realisable on sale. So isn't that the obvious occasion on which to levy it? When the seller actually has the cash and the actual value is recorded and known to the government?
One reason that there is distrust of tax-and-spend policies is that many see politicians believing that “tax and throw the money over the wall” is the way to go.
What we need is an articulation of what we are trying to do.
Then a sliding scale of costed spending plans that actually might achieve various gradation of results. Then select one based on cost and affordability.
Then use modern, scientific management combined with investment in operations and productivity to carry out the picked plan.
Taxes on property, yes. But extending NI to all income, or more sensibly replacing NI with ICT to give the same effect is the way to go.
By all means keep the triple lock but ensure pensioners (like me) and those living off investments rather than actually working for a living pay the same overall rates on their income as the working population.
"A British Army veteran of 13 years and victim of the Windrush Scandal has died in Jamaica after being left destitute and humiliated by the UK government.
When Anthony Williams despaired with the UK in 2022, he told the Guardian that the Tory government was “just stringing us along until people lose interest, and we die out.”"
The triple lock delivery to wealthy pensioners is just wrong and very costly.
Add in the need for defence spending rising to 2.5%, the need for social care which parties are in denial, the needs for the NHS and education then taxes have to rise including on property
Our blue-tit is sitting on eleven eggs……. laid at about the normal time.
OTOH the asparagus is very sluggish - hoping it will speed up in May.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-empire-windrush/empire-windrush-the-notting-hill-carnival/source-1-passenger-list-of-the-empire-windrush/
Ajax can be replaced by any number of APCs that exist right now. Any order would be substantial enough to get a shiny new factory included. Same for tanks. Same for artillery.
Yes. Amen to that.
It is the biggest failure of the entire political class in a very long time.
No one has the cojones to grab this issue and deal with it; so it festers on - dragging the NHS down with it and subjecting tens of thousands of families to terrible stress and worry and far worse.
What your second sentence says, if true, which I suspect it might well be, is that Sunak has staked the future existence of the Conservative party on the idea that potential boat people both know about the Rwanda scheme and will be deterred by a <1% chance of ending up there.
Remember these are people who are largely 'informed' by people smugglers and are willing to risk a small boat crossing of the channel for the chance to live in black economy Britain.
So on one side we have Tory hopium. And on the other side, reality.
Until the Tories accept that reality is reality, they will lose.
Council tax - especially if more bands are added at the top end
Stamp duty on sales
Inheritance tax
Capital gains tax on multiple ownership
The different ways allow the extra burden to be spread as desired.
A very good interview by Nancy Pelosi with Laura Kuenssberg, this morning.
Putting the repeated Trump talking points firmly back in their box.
In fact I don't think there is any country in the world that treats people's home as a typical asset when it's bought and sold...
"Can't afford a house? Now you can't afford to inherit one! Oh, you were living with your parents anyway? Guess you're evicted. We're very sorry for your loss."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72plr8v94xo
"In 1997, the most common living arrangement for an adult aged between 18 and 34 was being in a couple with children, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank. Now, it is living with your parents."
It is ok and perfectly understandable to be terrified of such an event, no need for the fake bravado.
Fiscal drag is simply increasing the tax pensioners pay and dragging more and more (poorer) pensioners back into income tax.
I find it strange how the peddled notion of "big party being in the pocket of smaller party" doesn't either represent the truth or work out well electorally for said smaller party.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of any electoral system, the truth seems to be parties trying to punch far above their electoral weight tend to get dragged back to earth in time.
I'd also point out the longer a party stays in power and the more it thinks it has a semi-divine right to perpetual governance, the more rapid and sudden the descent to irrelevance.
One might almost surmise the electorate themselves create the balance required within democratic systems even if the system is gerrymandered to try to create perpetual one party governance (not saying that happens in the UK but it does happen in so-called democracies elesewhere).
I might- just about, at last, have some tomato seedlings coming up.
Rishi Sunak = Ed Milliband. Its that bad.
PS: You are a bit of a prude to fantasise that him admitting having consensual sex with one woman outside marriage was anything like what you allege.
Everyone wants these boats to stop. Perhaps a practical, workable plan to make that happen might be a good idea?
On the plus side she now adds Gift Aid to her charitable donations and membership fees for charities.
The owner of the firm that bought us, Pragnesh Modhwadia, admits using his client's funds to buy my firm and another law firm, has been suspended by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and is under investigation by the SFO. He was the 100% owner of his firm, he acted as its Compliance Officer for Legal Practice, Head of Finance and Administration, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.
The firm he founded as a one man conveyancing practice some years earlier, Axiom Stone) had no experience whatsoever of the type of law my firm practiced in the City. The SRA not only allowed the takeover it actively encouraged it by threatening my firm with intervention if it did not get the client files out of our financially distressed environment ASAP. As a result of that hundreds of clients who had money in the firm have lost that money, dozens of people remain out of work, and the SRA is proposing adding £500 to the cost of a practicing certificate of every single solicitor in England and Wales. This need not have happened with respect to my old firm. Other parties were interested.
Why was one man allowed to have so much control over so much client money in such a large firm? The ownership structure of the Axiom entity had not changed since Modhwadia founded it above a greengrocers in Edgware. How was that structure supposed to manage a multinational top 100 firm with expertise in shipping and insurance law? While historically one person has been able to properly run small law firms, this was not a small law firm.
I guess my point here is that nothing seems to operate properly anymore. Its more than law, its culture. The rot at the SRA is not unique to that organisation, it seems to exist in every organisation that's designed to oversee our behaviour, from the Met onwards.
I am surprised I am the only one on here interested in the Private Eye revelation about the Rayner soap opera. I thought you might have raised an eyebrow.
It surrounds Chief Constable Watson reopening the Rayner case on a word from James Daly who has made no secret that he believes Watson should replace Rowley at the Met. Doubtless all coincidental, so nothing to see there. However Watson does appear to have connections to the Conservative Party and has made Conference fringe speeches.