Let’s talk about sextet – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervenedCarnyx said:
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).Foxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell1 -
Malmesbury said:
It’s more, as with my father in hospital, knowing how to get ones due. If we had sat there all nice and polite, he would have died from negligence and lack of care.KnightOut said:Malmesbury said:
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.MisterBedfordshire said:
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.Tweedledee said:
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumablyydoethur said:Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It's possible for both things to be true.
The healthcare, education and benefits systems (among others) regularly see people who are gaming the system *and* those who are missing out. Seen a lot of it in the charity sector.
Twas always thus, and is a product of the range of human personality types as much as anything.
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.
2 -
Well, you're fullBig_G_NorthWales said:
Thing is most pensioners as they age eat much lessFoxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
😃2 -
Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."2 -
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.2 -
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervenedCarnyx said:
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).Foxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
1 -
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?BartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.0 -
Careful - you will upset @HYUFD !!!!BartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.1 -
Isn't that what I just said?state_go_away said:
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?BartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.1 -
well quite - how else do you explain the (lib dem especially) sympathy for the WASPI women?KnightOut said:Malmesbury said:
It’s more, as with my father in hospital, knowing how to get ones due. If we had sat there all nice and polite, he would have died from negligence and lack of care.KnightOut said:Malmesbury said:
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.MisterBedfordshire said:
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.Tweedledee said:
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumablyydoethur said:Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It's possible for both things to be true.
The healthcare, education and benefits systems (among others) regularly see people who are gaming the system *and* those who are missing out. Seen a lot of it in the charity sector.
Twas always thus, and is a product of the range of human personality types as much as anything.
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.0 -
Maybe @HYUFD should get a job then, rather than demand taxpayers give him an inheritance.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Careful - you will upset @HYUFD !!!!BartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.3 -
My mother came to the impression that they were implementing such a policy aleeady when she ras being dicked about by the NHS being pdssed between outpatient departments at different hospitals at 3 month intervals.Foxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
A phone call to Nuffield later and she was in to see a specialist in a week and in for Day Surgery with general anaesthetic within 3 weeks. Cost about the same as supply and install a gas boiler.
0 -
Not me thoughtwistedfirestopper3 said:
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervenedCarnyx said:
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).Foxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell1 -
Talking of La Mone, the "save money" justification for Reforming the Lords was a bit weak - it runs very effectively on a shoestring compared to the Commons.Fairliered said:
They can start with Michelle Mone.MattW said:An interestingly political pair of speeches.
For me, RR reported a £22bn black hole - I am not clear whether that is per annum or one-off or a mix. But 5.5bn this year and 8bn next year looks like there is a lot still to come.
The COVID Corruption Commission will also be interesting - how much is that supposed to recover: 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions?1 -
He is a refugee now.Andy_JS said:Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."1 -
well the you woudl not have to spend on benefits and give tax cuts -plenty of people have not worked ever who are capableBartholomewRoberts said:
Isn't that what I just said?state_go_away said:
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?BartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.0 -
They are in fiscal terms.twistedfirestopper3 said:
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervenedCarnyx said:
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).Foxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
How many times do I have to point out that unless private enterprises and their employees put money into the treasury in the first place there is no money to pay state employees.
Tax the private sector too much to pay for too big a state sector and they work less or relocate abroad and the public sector implodes.0 -
Hope it won't be applied back to generation Carnyx, if you were Independently Educated.Carnyx said:
Retrospectively? 1 January is in the future.Casino_Royale said:Ar$holes pushing ahead with VAT on school fees from 1st January, and will apply retrospectively.
Disgusting.
You can imagine Boris' fluffing - "But but but, I was at Eton in the 1980s".0 -
That doesn't match the data at all.state_go_away said:
well the you woudl not have to spend on benefits and give tax cuts -plenty of people have not worked ever who are capableBartholomewRoberts said:
Isn't that what I just said?state_go_away said:
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?BartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Our unemployment rate is very low, the overwhelming majority of people on benefits are over 65, not working age people who aren't working.3 -
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?0
-
Quite so (I did say those ... for whom ..., not all).Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervenedCarnyx said:
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).Foxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell
Edit: and happily so.1 -
Maybe he will claim political asylum.Andy_JS said:Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."0 -
Point of order. Police and Fire paid by council tax.Fairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?2 -
Underrated show that. Its pure nonsense, but quite entertaining none the less.MisterBedfordshire said:
That will will keep McDonald and Dodd out of trouble for a whileFrancisUrquhart said:0 -
An illegal immigrant to France or Belgium. Do they have the equivalent of Rwanda?MisterBedfordshire said:
He is a refugee now.Andy_JS said:Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."0 -
Further point of order: much of LA expenditure is from central government.MisterBedfordshire said:
Point of order. Police and Fire paid by council tax.Fairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
We'll have to agree to disagree. You'd arguably pay more for a worse service from OCP.MisterBedfordshire said:
They are in fiscal terms.twistedfirestopper3 said:
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervenedCarnyx said:
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).Foxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell0 -
I’m sure the same people supporting the ‘whole truth five’ will also support ‘our tommeh’ as a victim.Andy_JS said:Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."0 -
So anyone could go along to their house and threaten to set fire to it, and then charge them for putting it out? Ditto having your wallet stolen. Very 18th century.Fairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
1 -
Electoral cynicism and political prostitution.state_go_away said:
well quite - how else do you explain the (lib dem especially) sympathy for the WASPI women?KnightOut said:Malmesbury said:
It’s more, as with my father in hospital, knowing how to get ones due. If we had sat there all nice and polite, he would have died from negligence and lack of care.KnightOut said:Malmesbury said:
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.MisterBedfordshire said:
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.Tweedledee said:
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumablyydoethur said:Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It's possible for both things to be true.
The healthcare, education and benefits systems (among others) regularly see people who are gaming the system *and* those who are missing out. Seen a lot of it in the charity sector.
Twas always thus, and is a product of the range of human personality types as much as anything.
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.
The WASPI women deserve, and will get, nothing1 -
Our real unemployment rate is about six million (those working less than 30 hours aa week and receiving state benefits).BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't match the data at all.state_go_away said:
well the you woudl not have to spend on benefits and give tax cuts -plenty of people have not worked ever who are capableBartholomewRoberts said:
Isn't that what I just said?state_go_away said:
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?BartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Our unemployment rate is very low, the overwhelming majority of people on benefits are over 65, not working age people who aren't working.0 -
Not all local government costs are funded from council tax, only around 60%.MisterBedfordshire said:
Point of order. Police and Fire paid by council tax.Fairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
2 -
That’s the risk they take.Carnyx said:
So anyone could go along to their house and threaten to set fire to it, and then charge them for putting it out? Ditto having your wallet stolen. Very 18th century.Fairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
unemployment rates are low because a lot more are on incapacity benefitBartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't match the data at all.state_go_away said:
well the you woudl not have to spend on benefits and give tax cuts -plenty of people have not worked ever who are capableBartholomewRoberts said:
Isn't that what I just said?state_go_away said:
or maybe those on benefits just maybe get a job?BartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Our unemployment rate is very low, the overwhelming majority of people on benefits are over 65, not working age people who aren't working.0 -
I dont doubt that. The point I am trying to make is that the state is trying to do far too much and throttling its sources of revenue by overtaxing and regulating them as a result.twistedfirestopper3 said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. You'd arguably pay more for a worse service from OCP.MisterBedfordshire said:
They are in fiscal terms.twistedfirestopper3 said:
But some on here argue that your cardiologist and his team are "unproductive" because they get their pay (especially the team members lower down the ladder) from tax revenue rather than being paid by OCP.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would not be here today, according to my cardiologist, if he and his team and many more in the health service hadn't intervenedCarnyx said:
And those Tories for whom it's against their principles to be served by a public employee, like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (and added screening for PB posters on this matter).Foxy said:
Perhaps we can compromise and remove pensioners from all NHS waiting lists as "useless eaters".bondegezou said:
Maybe if their health problem was dealt with, they could return to work.Casino_Royale said:
How many of those on waiting lists are working taxpayers?SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
in the last 9 months when I was very seriously unwell0 -
Ah so a bone idle zillionaire playboy who does nothing but spend huge sums on vatable luxury goods is a mega producer and net £££ contributor to society then.🤦♂️MisterBedfordshire said:
They don't pay any net tax, they just receive money net of the "tax" amount from the treasury.SouthamObserver said:
Doctors, who all pay tax, of course, get other taxpayers back to work.MisterBedfordshire said:
Like it or not a doctor working in A&E is a drain on Taxpayers. They can only be funded if enough taxpayers earn enough in the private sector to top up the treasury.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Unproductive in what way? Granted, they're not making billions for their shareholders, but what profit do you expect public services to turn in? Maybe we should charge for putting out fires? Trip over the curb, end up in A&E, the doctor has to get your credit card out of your wallet while you're unconscious? Call the rozzers out because you've just been mugged, but you can't pay because your wallet has been nicked?Taz said:
They’re taking from the productive sector and rewarding the unproductive sector.HYUFD said:
Working public sector people get a pay rise, not working private sector people.Gallowgate said:At least Labour are giving working people a payrise and cutting funding to rich OAPs. Fair play.
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
Is that the sort of productive you're interested in?
Keep increasing public sector pay and taxing tbe private sector to pay for it and the private sector lose interest in working harder and tax take goes down, so no money to pay the doctor in A&E.
Without the private sector actually putting money into the treasury in the first place, there isn't any money to pay doctors.2 -
Is a Labour Chancellor ever any good ...
0 -
I thought Darling was the bestsquareroot2 said:Is a Labour Chancellor ever any good ...
1 -
Sounds like she just scrapped a bunch of unaffordable benefits.Alanbrooke said:Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
Isn't that a good thing?3 -
Sounds like she's made a good start then.Alanbrooke said:Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
4 -
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.0 -
...
Somewhat ironic he will probably have to see out his days in some third world shit hole that will be rammed to the gunnels with FOREIGNERS. Oh wait! On his terms he'll be the FOREIGNER.Andy_JS said:Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."0 -
It won't happen yet.Mexicanpete said:
I may be tempting fate but the government gilts and bonds markets haven't careered down the ravine like they did in 2022 under a - checks notes- Conservative Government, yet.MisterBedfordshire said:Anywhere you can bet on which year the IMF will be called in and order savage Greek type cuts.
(Upon which SKS/Reeves will blame the Tories for leaving them a mess and say the nasty bankers at the IMF made us do the cuts).
When the benefits and other spending bills go up a result of 5%+pay/pension/benefits rises and the tax take goes down because businesses relocate abroad due to too much tax or workers work less or not at all for the same reason, then the merde will hit the fan.
If pension tax relief at 40% goes, I am handing in my notice and retiring as the difference between earnings and early pension just won't be worth the bother.0 -
Thank you Lord Astor.Alanbrooke said:Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
0 -
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.2 -
I wouldFairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
And guess which group tends to be the least pushy? Yes, children, the worst off.KnightOut said:Malmesbury said:
It’s more, as with my father in hospital, knowing how to get ones due. If we had sat there all nice and polite, he would have died from negligence and lack of care.KnightOut said:Malmesbury said:
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.MisterBedfordshire said:
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.Tweedledee said:
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumablyydoethur said:Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It's possible for both things to be true.
The healthcare, education and benefits systems (among others) regularly see people who are gaming the system *and* those who are missing out. Seen a lot of it in the charity sector.
Twas always thus, and is a product of the range of human personality types as much as anything.
Indeed. Some folks take stoicism to a ludicrous extreme and don't want to make a fuss even though it's patently obvious that they should.
Others make a racket, get a result, and continue making a racket long after they've been recompensed, because it works.
You see it in the workplace too - with pay increase requests, expenses claims and everything else. Big divide between the pushy and the undemanding.
Looking at the patients around my father, you could see who was going to make it. The ones with family that have a damn and knew how to push. One chap in the next bed just faded away, steadily. All polite and unvisited….0 -
deleted0
-
Bizarre stuff from the BBC trying to downplay the prevalence of stabbings and ending up by referring to Dunblaine as a stabbing incident.
https://x.com/andymroberts/status/18179232035593097340 -
Edit: nearer 30% in England, 20% in Scotland.Fairliered said:
Not all local government costs are funded from council tax, only around 60%.MisterBedfordshire said:
Point of order. Police and Fire paid by council tax.Fairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
I've just re-run those calculations, as my neighbours to the east had two trees crown-lifted today, which will do wonders for the sun on my East facing panels.Phil said:
It’s more than half: the majority of our bill is heating. We had a smart meter installed at the end of Jan - typical summer usage is 13m^3 / month. February? 87 m^3. January was colder. March was 80 m^3, April 40m^3.Selebian said:
Interesting to check the life-cycle analysis on how many days one has to jet off somewhere warm to reduce carbon emissions compared to staying in a typical UK home in winter.Sandpit said:
Damn, that’s bad news for Emirates airline, at least as far as my parents are concerned. They’ve used their WFA to fly somewhere warmer for the past few years.tlg86 said:Winter fuel allowance scrapped for those not getting credits.
I suspect it might be a one-way ticket is required! A train or coach to south of France could be interesting though.
ETA: this website quotes 2.2 tonnes/year for a domestic gas boiler, which they quote as 7 flights from London to NY. If we guess half of that is winter heat then a long stay could start to make sense. London to Paris by train is 22kg return accoridng to seat 61 so, if we guess Marseille is about 3-4 times that, you'd only need to stay way for maybe about a week if my sums are right to break even on CO2.
So a rough estimate of annual usage might be 3/4 heating, 1/4 cooking / hot water.
On the other hand, a m^3 of natgas weights < 1kg, so we’re using a lot less than that 2.2tonne estimate to heat our 4 bed single skin brick terrace.
In the last 12 months I have used 2400kWh of imported electricity and exported ~2000kWh. I have used ~400 cubic m or ~4300kWh of gas (surprised how low this is tbh - perhaps down by 60-70% on numbers from a couple of years ago). TBF I have pivoted to electric heating/cooling in the last year or two.
200sqm bed house, to roughly 2010 Building Regs Standards (ie OK but not great), live here on my own at present. Gas is cooking, hot water, usually shower and a little heating in winter. Elec is everything else.
With those numbers, and the trees reduced, I am probably within spitting distance of the solar exports and FITs (~2015 install) paying the whole bill. Not as good as some achieve, but I won't complain.1 -
Good luck with your RTA...StillWaters said:
I wouldFairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
Shit. My 8 year old daughter had been booked on to a quite similar themed dance summer camp today, obviously not this one. It ended up being postponed but I'm feeling it a bit more than usual.TheScreamingEagles said:Two children murdered and nine others injured in the Southport attack.
Edit - Merseyside police chief constable Serena Kennedy: Two children have died as a result of a stabbing, nine others injured - six of whom are in a critical condition. Two adults are also in a critical condition.
A couple of things. Twitter users reporting the arrested man having an Arabic name and being on a watch list is par for the course. With the exclusion of terrorism one sincerely hopes they are wrong. Leon, were he here, would be absolutely all over this. This seems a constant and I think the government need to be absolutely crystal clear about the guidance
to police on how the flow of information is
managed, how and when the information is
presented and how certain factors that people may feel relevant, including racial, nationality and religious information are dealt with. Originally from Cardiff to me says British raised, even if it says little of ethnicity.
Then, when people start calling cover up, the obvious community note is freely available to link. Government needs to at least try to steal a march on Twitter speculation by having an open, public playbook.
Secondly, such venues are not nurseries or
schools, and the physical security of these venues is highly variable, especially in shared use spaces. A lot of ancillary child activity / child care venues are going to have to seriously look at this.0 -
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
0 -
This segues into questions like: is there a difference between taxpayers paying for a heart transplant vs health insurance paying for it?BartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
& exactly how much old age care is reasonable for people to pay out of their own pocket & how much should the state / a health insurer pay as an “insurance payout” ?
Someone I know had a blood cancer that (until the relevant drugs fell out of patent) cost ~£40k / year to treat. In the US health insurance would have paid for them. In the UK, the NHS does so the cost comes out of general taxation. Is the government paying for his kids to inherit his house sometime in the future? They would have had to sell up to fund his treatment otherwise.
Where are the lines here? None of this seems cut & dried to me.0 -
Public transport all the wayFoxy said:
Good luck with your RTA...StillWaters said:
I wouldFairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
Why "wow" ?Luckyguy1983 said:
Wow.Casino_Royale said:Jenrick just doesn't seem like a particularly nice person.
Cleverley, Stride or Tom Tug are my picks.
I think Kemi could do it but currently has a target on her back, and needs to avoid all the start an argument in a phone box stuff.
Leadership is about being a team player.0 -
Just because you're in opposition doesn't mean you can't influence or play an important part in the political process.bondegezou said:
Are any of Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick, Priti Patel, Mel Stride or Tom Tugendhat at the big table?Casino_Royale said:
Ah, I see you're using the "I'm more enlightened than you" argument. A classic.SouthamObserver said:
What a silly comment. I am afraid I just the world differently to you. I believe you need to pay wages and offer conditions that will attract and retain the staff needed to teach our kids, run our health service, guard our prisons, patrol our streets and so on. One day you may be grown-up enough to understand that.Casino_Royale said:
Says a Labour football-team supporter.SouthamObserver said:
And she's absolutely right to do so.Casino_Royale said:
Her priority is clear, and it's raising public sector pay:HYUFD said:
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularlynico679 said:Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise
Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase
Prison service worker will see a rise of 5%
The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
(save the "I voted LD" stuff, just because you voted tactically to eject the Tory MP)
Whilst you're busy seeing the world differently, some of us are actually looking at the numbers and finding sustainable solutions.
Let us know when you're ready to join the adults at the big table.
0 -
Have you not heard of a train wreck?StillWaters said:
Public transport all the wayFoxy said:
Good luck with your RTA...StillWaters said:
I wouldFairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
Fucking off to Canada is high on my list.kyf_100 said:
HMRC's own research suggests that a 25% rise in CGT, i.e. from 20% to 25% would be revenue positive for the treasury. While a hike to 30% would be substantially revenue negative. So there's a part of me that hopes for a bit of common sense. I could eat a rise from 20% to 25%, especially if I think my portfolio is going to grow more than that over the next year or two to cover it. Also, a return of taper relief would significantly alter my position. So it's worth waiting and seeing, when the worst thing that happens is you sell your primary residence at 0% CGT and use the cash to rebase yourself somewhere else in time for next year.Tweedledee said:
You just want a tax-based excuse to go and live abroad don't you? The rationale for levying VAT on school fees for summer term 2025 irrespective of when they are paid really doesn't read across to hiking the tax on a chargeable gain realised in summer 2024. I would bet serious money at 3 that CGT hikes will not be retrospective, and that they will happen. I obviously have no idea of your circumstances but say you have 1m in shares you are incurring a probable £250k hit for the luxury of "seeing what your position is." No guarantee that the rules for changing residence to escape the hit won't change at the same time as the hike, either. There's a policy paper out today https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2024-non-uk-domiciled-individuals-policy-summary/changes-to-the-taxation-of-non-uk-domiciled-individualskyf_100 said:
For the same reason I'm not expecting to make any capital disposals before the October budget and the predicted CGT hike.Casino_Royale said:
No, the government could have said it'd take effect from 1st January 2025 to any and all fees paid subsequently from that point.Carnyx said:
Obvious tax evasion - would be challenged in the courts if it weren't already being dealt with. The way interest rates are, nobody in their right mind would park large sums of money with a company outside the FSCS for any other reason.Casino_Royale said:
To any fees paid in advance for next school year.Carnyx said:
Retrospectively? 1 January is in the future.Casino_Royale said:Ar$holes pushing ahead with VAT on school fees from 1st January, and will apply retrospectively.
Disgusting.
They chose not to do so.
My wife and I now have some difficult choices to make.
While I don't reckon they'll make the hike retrospective, they've proven they're bonkers enough to do it.
Better to see what my position is under the new regime and adjust my financial plans / tax residency accordingly in the new year.
which sounds like a complete overhaul of tax residence law. If I were Rachel I would jack 5 years up to 10. Would you be happy with that?
Would I be happy with leaving for ten years? Or forever? Honestly at this point, yeah.
Wife isn't pro because it's too far from her family.0 -
It is, and thank you, but, do you expect me to stay quiet about it?Jonathan said:Sympathy to @Casino_Royale today. It’s brutal when you’re at the business end of a change in political power.
Political debate never ends. Quite frankly, if it did, I'm not sure what we'd talk about either except Ian's dog and Sean's latest conspiracy theories.
Not quite so up for that.3 -
Yes. It’s a strict liability offence.state_go_away said:I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?0 -
Alanbrooke said:
Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
0 -
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.1 -
For a second there, I thought Toenails had pegged it from the BBC too.Andy_JS said:Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."0 -
Are you leaving the country as well?...MisterBedfordshire said:
It won't happen yet.Mexicanpete said:
I may be tempting fate but the government gilts and bonds markets haven't careered down the ravine like they did in 2022 under a - checks notes- Conservative Government, yet.MisterBedfordshire said:Anywhere you can bet on which year the IMF will be called in and order savage Greek type cuts.
(Upon which SKS/Reeves will blame the Tories for leaving them a mess and say the nasty bankers at the IMF made us do the cuts).
When the benefits and other spending bills go up a result of 5%+pay/pension/benefits rises and the tax take goes down because businesses relocate abroad due to too much tax or workers work less or not at all for the same reason, then the merde will hit the fan.
If pension tax relief at 40% goes, I am handing in my notice and retiring as the difference between earnings and early pension just won't be worth the bother.
0 -
Was Huw "only doing research" ??state_go_away said:I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?0 -
Who was the rock star that claimed that and was still done?Casino_Royale said:
Was Huw "only doing research" ??state_go_away said:I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?0 -
It's the same old theme, since 1916williamglenn said:Bizarre stuff from the BBC trying to downplay the prevalence of stabbings and ending up by referring to Dunblaine as a stabbing incident.
https://x.com/andymroberts/status/18179232035593097340 -
Another medal and incredibly close miss.
Matt Richards missed out on a stunning Olympic gold by two hundredths of a second but took a thrilling silver in the 200m freestyle in Paris.0 -
...
Pete Townsend (allegedly).FrancisUrquhart said:
Who was the rock star that claimed that and was still done?Casino_Royale said:
Was Huw "only doing research" ??state_go_away said:I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
Gary Glitter for sure.0 -
In Rachel's Britain I counsel you not to be sick. I warn you not to grow old.BartholomewRoberts said:
Sounds like she just scrapped a bunch of unaffordable benefits.Alanbrooke said:Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
Isn't that a good thing?0 -
Very problematic in the 2000s, as it was ill thought out and in New Labour's knee-jerk authoritarian phase.Phil said:
Yes. It’s a strict liability offence.state_go_away said:I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
A number of very nasty attacks on gay men due to inspiration by the "Gay=Paedophile" folk myth, as still propagated in some places. And animated by hysterical tabloid press coverage.
The same type of thing happened with vetting and barring to some.
I do not know if it is better now; I think Theresa May at the Home Office made some improvements.0 -
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.1 -
The build build build narrative didn't last long.Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.1 -
Carly Simon would have fun singing that one.state_go_away said:
I thought Darling was the bestsquareroot2 said:Is a Labour Chancellor ever any good ...
0 -
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?5 -
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,KnightOut said:Alanbrooke said:Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
1 -
That's true. That's not what I asked.Casino_Royale said:
Just because you're in opposition doesn't mean you can't influence or play an important part in the political process.bondegezou said:
Are any of Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick, Priti Patel, Mel Stride or Tom Tugendhat at the big table?Casino_Royale said:
Ah, I see you're using the "I'm more enlightened than you" argument. A classic.SouthamObserver said:
What a silly comment. I am afraid I just the world differently to you. I believe you need to pay wages and offer conditions that will attract and retain the staff needed to teach our kids, run our health service, guard our prisons, patrol our streets and so on. One day you may be grown-up enough to understand that.Casino_Royale said:
Says a Labour football-team supporter.SouthamObserver said:
And she's absolutely right to do so.Casino_Royale said:
Her priority is clear, and it's raising public sector pay:HYUFD said:
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularlynico679 said:Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise
Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase
Prison service worker will see a rise of 5%
The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
(save the "I voted LD" stuff, just because you voted tactically to eject the Tory MP)
Whilst you're busy seeing the world differently, some of us are actually looking at the numbers and finding sustainable solutions.
Let us know when you're ready to join the adults at the big table.0 -
There will be a market for private acute medicine. Special forces trained paramedics to swoop in on quadcopters and whisk us away to 5* hospitals while the taxpayers hope the ambulance takes less than the current average 27 hours to turn up.Foxy said:
Good luck with your RTA...StillWaters said:
I wouldFairliered said:Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
0 -
US presidential state markets are up on Betfair.
Nothing interesting so far that I can see; Harris for President odds still offering better value.2 -
"paying for people's care and living costs"Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
The Dilnot cap did not cover "living costs" i.e. accommodation, energy bills etc in the care home. It only covered actual care costs. Probably 50:50. i.e. when the cap was £85K it actually meant more like £160K as only actual care costs were to be metered.
Plus if social services are paying for a care home under present system then you are expected to contribute any pension and other benefits towards "living costs". You get to keep a few £ a week for sundries such as newspapers.0 -
You're desperate to defend anything the government does at the moment, even though it goes against your small state instincts. All part of confirmation bias to justify your poor decision.BartholomewRoberts said:
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
Sad.0 -
I think Tom is at the big table. Not sure about Cleverly yet.bondegezou said:
That's true. That's not what I asked.Casino_Royale said:
Just because you're in opposition doesn't mean you can't influence or play an important part in the political process.bondegezou said:
Are any of Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick, Priti Patel, Mel Stride or Tom Tugendhat at the big table?Casino_Royale said:
Ah, I see you're using the "I'm more enlightened than you" argument. A classic.SouthamObserver said:
What a silly comment. I am afraid I just the world differently to you. I believe you need to pay wages and offer conditions that will attract and retain the staff needed to teach our kids, run our health service, guard our prisons, patrol our streets and so on. One day you may be grown-up enough to understand that.Casino_Royale said:
Says a Labour football-team supporter.SouthamObserver said:
And she's absolutely right to do so.Casino_Royale said:
Her priority is clear, and it's raising public sector pay:HYUFD said:
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularlynico679 said:Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise
Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase
Prison service worker will see a rise of 5%
The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
(save the "I voted LD" stuff, just because you voted tactically to eject the Tory MP)
Whilst you're busy seeing the world differently, some of us are actually looking at the numbers and finding sustainable solutions.
Let us know when you're ready to join the adults at the big table.2 -
In Russia? They are welcome to him.FrancisUrquhart said:
Maybe he will claim political asylum.Andy_JS said:Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."1 -
It's fucking pathetic.FrancisUrquhart said:
The build build build narrative didn't last long.Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
And not a word of protest on here from the sheep who used it as an excuse to vote for them a few weeks ago.0 -
How did Tommy Robinson just get on the EuroStar, especially with much increased pre-departure checks?0
-
I should point out Rachel Reeves hasn't done anything yet. The purpose of today is to pin as much blame for subsequent pain as she can on her predecessors, who I have to say are making that job easy for her.2
-
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.Alanbrooke said:
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,KnightOut said:Alanbrooke said:Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.1 -
Erhh she did do quite a lot today. 10 million won't get their winter fuel payment anymore, social care reform junked, loads of infrastructure projects canned and signed off significant public sector pay increases. That is quite a busy day at the office.FF43 said:I should point out Rachel Reeves hasn't done anything yet. The purpose of today is to pin as much blame for subsequent pain as she can on her predecessors, who I have to say are make that job easy for her.
Oh and Sunak new A-Levels that I think even he had forgotten about were sent to the glue factory.0 -
No I'm not, I'm standing by my principles.Casino_Royale said:
You're desperate to defend anything the government does at the moment, even though it goes against your small state instincts. All part of confirmation bias to justify your poor decision.BartholomewRoberts said:
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
Sad.
I've been saying for a long time that pay should rise for those working for a living.
I've been saying for a long time that our taxes should not fund anyone's inheritance.
I've been saying for a long time that we should not be paying unnecessary benefits like Winter Fuel Allowance to those who don't need it.
Why is funding a pay rise to those who are working for a living, while cutting funding for protecting inheritances, and cutting expenditure on benefits, a bad thing?
If you want money then work for it. Teachers, doctors etc are working for it, those demanding an inheritance and those claiming winter fuel allowance are not.5 -
You’re also desperate to declare them a failure already.Casino_Royale said:
You're desperate to defend anything the government does at the moment, even though it goes against your small state instincts. All part of confirmation bias to justify your poor decision.BartholomewRoberts said:
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?
Sad.
I will wait and see for a bit.3 -
Whose inheritance is funded out of taxes?BartholomewRoberts said:
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?0 -
Should it concern us that TR was arrested using counter-terrorism powers for what appears to be a mixture of libel and contempt of court?Cicero said:
In Russia? They are welcome to him.FrancisUrquhart said:
Maybe he will claim political asylum.Andy_JS said:Robinson on the run.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerxd00rlxo
"A senior judge has issued an arrest warrant for far-right campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - better known by his alias Tommy Robinson - after learning he has left the country on the eve of a major legal case against him. Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers. The 41-year-old had been due in court on Monday for allegedly breaching an order not to repeat lies about a Syrian refugee."0 -
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .1 -
That's exactly what HYUFD wants. Us to be taxed to ensue that those with property don't have to pay towards their own expenses, in order to ensure a taxpayer-backed inheritance.Tweedledee said:
Whose inheritance is funded out of taxes?BartholomewRoberts said:
Why shouldn't pay rise for those who are working for a living?Casino_Royale said:
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.BartholomewRoberts said:
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.StillWaters said:
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance taxBartholomewRoberts said:
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.StillWaters said:
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from themBartholomewRoberts said:I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
Isn't that exactly what taxes should go on, instead of going on benefits or funding people's inheritance?HYUFD said:
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularlynico679 said:Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
1 -
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.Stuartinromford said:
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.Alanbrooke said:
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,KnightOut said:Alanbrooke said:Rachel Reeves really isnt up to the job
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.0 -
It's a signal that featherbedding pensioners is no longer government policy, even though the triple lock stays.nico679 said:The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .2
