The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
It doesn’t mean that current Lib Dem voters will switch to the Conservatives, though.
The Conservatives cut taxes on higher earners, savings and property. The LDs do not.
If Labour come for those voters, and the Conservatives sort themselves out, there's only one obvious place such voters will go.
What the couch fucker and other conservatives don't understand about middle aged women is, attacking our self-worth doesn't work like it does on the teenagers and 20-somethings they normally prey on. We're basically immune to that type of shit by this age. https://x.com/MissesDread/status/1829970805293551826
But only to countries deemed safe. Namely Brazil and Vietnam
Given that 95% of asylum claims and illegal migration comes from non-safe countries in South Asia and Africa and MENA this won’t make more than a tiny dent. Sorry
For the LDs to eclipse the Tories they would have to become a genuine Orange Book centre right party and ditch the social democrats. Essentially the SDP wing of the LDs which merged with the Liberals in the 1980s would have to return to Labour. Only that would see the remaining One Nation centre right wing of the Tories permanently shift to the Liberals. The Tories would also need to lose their hard right ERG wing to Reform who would become the main party of populist Brexiteers and overtake the Tories too...
I think you're assuming an ideological coherence to the Lib Dem vote that isn't there. That's both their superpower and Achilles Heel.
The Lib Dem path to overtaking the Conservatives goes like this:
1. Identify thirty or so target seats. They will be overwhelmingly Conservative-held with a chunky Labour vote to squeeze, most will look like current Lib Dem seats- leafy. 2. Throw the kitchen sink at them for four to five years. 3. Err... 4. That's it really.
Nothing about social democracy vs. orange bookery. Everything about the failings of the government, the uselessnesses of your Tory MP and lots and lots of photos of potholes.
Yep I've had this discussion with hyufd before. The electorate hasn't a clue whether we are liberals or social democrats. If you asked them they would look you blankly in the face. In fact I couldn't tell you that about nearly all the other LDs I know and they couldn't tell that about me either. I couldn't even tell you about my MP. We concentrate on getting elected, not on differences that we don't care about.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
It doesn’t mean that current Lib Dem voters will switch to the Conservatives, though.
The Conservatives cut taxes on higher earners, savings and property. The LDs do not.
If Labour come for those voters, and the Conservatives sort themselves out, there's only one obvious place such voters will go.
Yes, but the Conservatives are not writing a budget for the foreseeable future so cannot cut taxes, neither can the LDs.
At most, the Tories can promise to cut taxes on high earners, but that may do them no favours in Red Wall and Tuquiose coast seats.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
Though we exceeded expectations in July. The wind is in our sails while the Tories drift rudderless towards the rocks.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
So you keep telling us. I might equally well say you're entirely complacent about Tory recovery.
If Labour fail, it will get interesting, and I don't think it at all clear how it will fall out.
Am I the only one who has no idea what @JosiasJessop is talking about? I run regularly and have never heard of bonking, beyond the obvious.
"Bonking, also known as "hitting the wall", is a term used by runners and other endurance athletes to describe when their muscles run out of fuel and they can no longer continue exercising. Bonking is caused by a depletion of glycogen, or stored glucose, in the body. It can lead to a sudden loss of energy and symptoms such as: fatigue, heavy limbs, dizziness, hunger, leg cramps, and extreme weakness."
It sorta relates to a conversation on here the other day, about nutrition whilst running.
We had friends round yesterday afternoon, and I snacked on biscuits and crisps so much that I didn't have a 'proper' evening meal. I did an 11k run early this morning, before breakfast which I should usually have no trouble with, but I found it a real struggle after about 7k. I continued running, just, but it was far from enjoyable. I virtually never have it happen on a short run like this.
All because I had been an idiot with my food (and drink...) the previous day.
Am I the only one who has no idea what @JosiasJessop is talking about? I run regularly and have never heard of bonking, beyond the obvious.
It’s fairly common in marathon parlance? Same thing as “hitting the wall” - traditionally attributed to your body running out of glycogen & having switch to fatty acid burning metabolism to generate ATP.
There's always plenty of entertainment to be found in @HYUFD's attempts to analyse the inner workings of the Liberal Democrats. Whether he actually knows any Lib Dems I'm not sure but the concepts of "Orange Bookers" versus "Social Democrats" is as outdated as talking about "Wets" and "Drys" in terms of the Conservative Party.
Like any other party, the LDs has its factions but I can assure you no one talks about Orange Bookers and Social Democrats and hasn't done in well over a decade.
Putting that nonsense to one side, the one thing which unites all factions in any party is victory and the one thing that accentuates all factions in any party is defeat (Stodge's Fourteenth Law of Politics, in case you weren't asking).
With 72 MPs, the LDs are a happy and united band currently and while there will be plenty of celebrations at the Brighton Conference in the middle of the month, rather as the spider climbing out of the bowl, the journey gets tougher and steeper from here.
The fact remains of the next 50 LD targets, 38 are held by the Conservatives and the fortunes of the LDs are if not in the control of, then certainly symbiotically linked to, the fortunes of the Conservative Party.
I'm sure any sensible Conservative isn't working on the assumption discontent with the Government is going to transfer automatically and completely to the Conservatives - indeed, with Reform, the LDs and Greens you have a multi-polar opposition environment which won't always work to the benefit of the lead Opposition party.
IF Starmer gets through the next 18-36 months of problems and as someone nearly once said things do seem to get better (for which he may not be wholly responsible but for which he'll take any credit going but that's politics), Labour may will canter home to re-election. The worse it gets, the longer he'll hang on just in case, pace Micawber, something does turn up.
For the LDs, that's both an opportunity and a challenge - the scars of the Coalition run deep and it'll be a very cold day in a very hot place before the Party goes down that road again. It may also be the LD experience will be a cautionary tale for Reform were they even to consider propping up a minority Conservative administration after the next GE.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
But only to countries deemed safe. Namely Brazil and Vietnam
Given that 95% of asylum claims and illegal migration comes from non-safe countries in South Asia and Africa and MENA this won’t make more than a tiny dent. Sorry
Interesting that they're considering offshore processing though. So unless they join an EU scheme (will be by far the preferred option if such a thing exists), they're effectively going to do Rwanda mark 2, but not in Rwanda because they fucked that and it would look terrible. So somewhere totally new and requiring huge amounts of time and financial resource.
Am I the only one who has no idea what @JosiasJessop is talking about? I run regularly and have never heard of bonking, beyond the obvious.
I also thought it was a myth until I cruising 30k into a marathon and suddenly... It was terrible and that 12k was the worst hour (and quite a bit) of exercise I've ever had.
It's different to normal exhaustion - I can usually grit my teeth and push through that. I couldn't daydream which is a disaster.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
So you keep telling us. I might equally well say you're entirely complacent about Tory recovery.
If Labour fail, it will get interesting, and I don't think it at all clear how it will fall out.
I think that final paragraph is very true. Yes, a beneficiary of Labour unpopularity could be the Tories. But not necessarily.
I think the conditions are potentially ripe for a sizeable chunk of the electorate to throw their hands up and say “I don’t want either of you two anymore”, next time.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
So you keep telling us. I might equally well say you're entirely complacent about Tory recovery.
If Labour fail, it will get interesting, and I don't think it at all clear how it will fall out.
I think that final paragraph is very true. Yes, a beneficiary of Labour unpopularity could be the Tories. But not necessarily.
I think the conditions are potentially ripe for a sizeable chunk of the electorate to throw their hands up and say “I don’t want either of you two anymore”, next time.
That's why Reform are polling 12% in Scotland. In SCOTLAND. Just rejoice at that news.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough
Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
Higher than the Tories on this site?
What you describe might happen but it requires many people to completely change their minds, especially what they think about the Conservative Party.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
So you keep telling us. I might equally well say you're entirely complacent about Tory recovery.
If Labour fail, it will get interesting, and I don't think it at all clear how it will fall out.
I think that final paragraph is very true. Yes, a beneficiary of Labour unpopularity could be the Tories. But not necessarily.
I think the conditions are potentially ripe for a sizeable chunk of the electorate to throw their hands up and say “I don’t want either of you two anymore”, next time.
For the Conservatives really to benefit everyone who voted Reform will have to switch to the Conservatives, which has nothing to do with Labour, popular or otherwise
Am I the only one who has no idea what @JosiasJessop is talking about? I run regularly and have never heard of bonking, beyond the obvious.
Also known as a hunger knock. Bonking is a well known term in cycling.
Well that really cleared it up.
You run out of energy because you deplete your glycogen (?) reserves and haven't been eating enough gels/jelly babies/ whatever to compensate. Never happened to me and possibly a danger overemphasized d by Big Jelly Baby.
From the outside, the Conservative Party leadership campaign looks a supreme example of a number of follicly-challenged individuals fighting over a comb.
There's four parts to this process (and please correct me as I'm probably wrong). The initial "six become four" before the Conference, then the four "hopefuls" get to rant before an audience of defeated and depressed activists (popcorn at the ready), then the MPs whittle four down to two before the membership ballot.
The four survivors from the first round of voting will go to Conference and throw as much red meat to the activists as said activists can digest each outdoing the other to try to be more, well, "Conservative" (obviously not), but more "Reform-lite" perhaps.
The problem is impressing the activists at Conference won't work if you don't get through the post-Conference ballot of MPs so do you pitch your Conference speech to the activists or to the MPs? That's the challenge....
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
So you keep telling us. I might equally well say you're entirely complacent about Tory recovery.
If Labour fail, it will get interesting, and I don't think it at all clear how it will fall out.
I think that final paragraph is very true. Yes, a beneficiary of Labour unpopularity could be the Tories. But not necessarily.
I think the conditions are potentially ripe for a sizeable chunk of the electorate to throw their hands up and say “I don’t want either of you two anymore”, next time.
That's why Reform are polling 12% in Scotland. In SCOTLAND. Just rejoice at that news.
Which is very interesting. In terms of demographic profile, the Scottish Conservative vote is much more suppressed than Labour's, even though the SNP are a left wing party. Unionist tactical voting is pervasive.
Previously, I've thought the Conservative ceiling in Scotland could therefore be quite high, maybe even into the 30s as it was under Thatcher (but depends on some Tartan Tories giving up on independence).
But Reform's ceiling? I can't see it going over 20%, which means that the Right in Scotland has taken a step back by splitting like this. That's fine in terms of Holyrood, but at Westminster that opens more seats up to the Lib Dems and SNP in the Scottish shires.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
Yet in sheer number of posts you more than make up for any deficiency in actual Conservative supporters.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough
Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
As I have said many times here, starting years ago when the idea was roundly mocked by all and sundry, Britain should have a worldwide network of asylum processing centres, with *no* asylum processing in the UK. This would be far better for genuine asylum seekers, because the centres would be closer to their countries of origin, and of zero interest to fraudulent asylum seekers (at least those without an extremely compelling fake case) because they wouldn't be able to await the verdict in the UK. If Labour implement this I would support them.
For the LDs to eclipse the Tories they would have to become a genuine Orange Book centre right party and ditch the social democrats. Essentially the SDP wing of the LDs which merged with the Liberals in the 1980s would have to return to Labour. Only that would see the remaining One Nation centre right wing of the Tories permanently shift to the Liberals. The Tories would also need to lose their hard right ERG wing to Reform who would become the main party of populist Brexiteers and overtake the Tories too.
Am I the only one who has no idea what @JosiasJessop is talking about? I run regularly and have never heard of bonking, beyond the obvious.
Also known as a hunger knock. Bonking is a well known term in cycling.
Bonking in its sex sense came from Chris Tarrant's OTT adult spin-off from Tiswas. Before then, on the bonk meant an erection (as well as its non-sexual meanings).
2016 was the first time in modern history the winning presidential candidate boasted about the size of his todger, and 2024 the first time the same candidate complained about rivals denigrating it.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough
Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
As I have said many times here, starting years ago when the idea was roundly mocked by all and sundry, Britain should have a worldwide network of asylum processing centres, with *no* asylum processing in the UK. This would be far better for genuine asylum seekers, because the centres would be closer to their countries of origin, and of zero interest to fraudulent asylum seekers (at least those without an extremely compelling fake case) because they wouldn't be able to await the verdict in the UK. If Labour implement this I would support them.
What is the incentive for third countries to host these centres, and won't they be surveilled by the secret police of adjacent bad countries?
For the LDs to eclipse the Tories they would have to become a genuine Orange Book centre right party and ditch the social democrats. Essentially the SDP wing of the LDs which merged with the Liberals in the 1980s would have to return to Labour. Only that would see the remaining One Nation centre right wing of the Tories permanently shift to the Liberals. The Tories would also need to lose their hard right ERG wing to Reform who would become the main party of populist Brexiteers and overtake the Tories too...
I think you're assuming an ideological coherence to the Lib Dem vote that isn't there. That's both their superpower and Achilles Heel.
The Lib Dem path to overtaking the Conservatives goes like this:
1. Identify thirty or so target seats. They will be overwhelmingly Conservative-held with a chunky Labour vote to squeeze, most will look like current Lib Dem seats- leafy. 2. Throw the kitchen sink at them for four to five years. 3. Err... 4. That's it really.
Nothing about social democracy vs. orange bookery. Everything about the failings of the government, the uselessnesses of your Tory MP and lots and lots of photos of potholes.
I agree with almost all of that - except for the bit about ideological coherence. If people (journalists???) have not managed to detect this, it must be because they are not looking for it in the right way.
Young HY, for example, is always going on at great length about the Orange Book Liberals and the others. I cannot remember when this distinction was first made. I do not think it was within the ranks of the Lib Dems. My memory is that this was a number of essays by leading Lib Dem politicians, thinking and speculating about their own specialist policy areas. Trying to lump these writers together as a separate and dictinct block I suspect came from people who never have been Lib Dems. And this is an attempt to cause divisions within the party. Or at least to create these divisions in the minds of the general public.
The key principle in the Lib Dems is individual freedom. But that is tempered by the need for there to be individual freedom for everybody. This is what the Tories cannot understand. They want freedom for themselves to do whatever they like, but at the same time they want the rest of us to be kept under control.
The challenge for the Lib Dems over the next five years, with their record number of Lib Dems MPs, is to make sure that support and criticism of policies is linked with Lib Dem values. This will then give them a very consistent narrative, one which people can understand. And continue to support.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
So you keep telling us. I might equally well say you're entirely complacent about Tory recovery.
If Labour fail, it will get interesting, and I don't think it at all clear how it will fall out.
I think that final paragraph is very true. Yes, a beneficiary of Labour unpopularity could be the Tories. But not necessarily.
I think the conditions are potentially ripe for a sizeable chunk of the electorate to throw their hands up and say “I don’t want either of you two anymore”, next time.
That's why Reform are polling 12% in Scotland. In SCOTLAND. Just rejoice at that news.
I hadn't had you pegged as a LibDem supporter before.
What is the incentive for third countries to host these centres, and won't they be surveilled by the secret police of adjacent bad countries?
Money. There could be a bandwidth problem though. If these Pop Up Asylum Drop In Centres aren't processing and admitting 000s per day then the channel shenanigans will continue anyway.
For the LDs to eclipse the Tories they would have to become a genuine Orange Book centre right party and ditch the social democrats. Essentially the SDP wing of the LDs which merged with the Liberals in the 1980s would have to return to Labour. Only that would see the remaining One Nation centre right wing of the Tories permanently shift to the Liberals. The Tories would also need to lose their hard right ERG wing to Reform who would become the main party of populist Brexiteers and overtake the Tories too...
I think you're assuming an ideological coherence to the Lib Dem vote that isn't there. That's both their superpower and Achilles Heel.
The Lib Dem path to overtaking the Conservatives goes like this:
1. Identify thirty or so target seats. They will be overwhelmingly Conservative-held with a chunky Labour vote to squeeze, most will look like current Lib Dem seats- leafy. 2. Throw the kitchen sink at them for four to five years. 3. Err... 4. That's it really.
Nothing about social democracy vs. orange bookery. Everything about the failings of the government, the uselessnesses of your Tory MP and lots and lots of photos of potholes.
2.5 Win council seats in 2025 and control more councils. 2.6 Fix the potholes.
Fixing the potholes is one of the things Mr Starmer needs to do if he want enough short term feelgood to win his second term, in order for his longer-term policies to come good.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough
Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
As I have said many times here, starting years ago when the idea was roundly mocked by all and sundry, Britain should have a worldwide network of asylum processing centres, with *no* asylum processing in the UK. This would be far better for genuine asylum seekers, because the centres would be closer to their countries of origin, and of zero interest to fraudulent asylum seekers (at least those without an extremely compelling fake case) because they wouldn't be able to await the verdict in the UK. If Labour implement this I would support them.
What is the incentive for third countries to host these centres, and won't they be surveilled by the secret police of adjacent bad countries?
What's the incentive for anything? Money and jobs.
And to answer your other question, I don't see that the applicants would be under any greater threat of surveillance within such a compound than on a journey to the UK.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough i Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
As I have said many times here, starting years ago when the idea was roundly mocked by all and sundry, Britain should have a worldwide network of asylum processing centres, with *no* asylum processing in the UK. This would be far better for genuine asylum seekers, because the centres would be closer to their countries of origin, and of zero interest to fraudulent asylum seekers (at least those without an extremely compelling fake case) because they wouldn't be able to await the verdict in the UK. If Labour implement this I would support them.
What is the incentive for third countries to host these centres, and won't they be surveilled by the secret police of adjacent bad countries?
Well, let's start with the obvious: there are plenty of (developed) countries that do offshore processing of asylum claims, so there is nothing particularly outrageous about the UK doing it too.
And it would be particularly advantageous to us, because there is the issue in the UK where asylum seekers disappear into the informal labour market, never to be seen or heard of again.
With that said, it might simply be easier to - you know - simply fund the asylum and immigration process properly. It takes years for decisions to be reached in the UK, against weeks and months in much of the rest of Europe. That - combined with a large informal labour market - makes us an attractive destination for those whose claims are ... less obvious.
For the LDs to eclipse the Tories they would have to become a genuine Orange Book centre right party and ditch the social democrats. Essentially the SDP wing of the LDs which merged with the Liberals in the 1980s would have to return to Labour. Only that would see the remaining One Nation centre right wing of the Tories permanently shift to the Liberals. The Tories would also need to lose their hard right ERG wing to Reform who would become the main party of populist Brexiteers and overtake the Tories too...
I think you're assuming an ideological coherence to the Lib Dem vote that isn't there. That's both their superpower and Achilles Heel.
The Lib Dem path to overtaking the Conservatives goes like this:
1. Identify thirty or so target seats. They will be overwhelmingly Conservative-held with a chunky Labour vote to squeeze, most will look like current Lib Dem seats- leafy. 2. Throw the kitchen sink at them for four to five years. 3. Err... 4. That's it really.
Nothing about social democracy vs. orange bookery. Everything about the failings of the government, the uselessnesses of your Tory MP and lots and lots of photos of potholes.
I agree with almost all of that - except for the bit about ideological coherence. If people (journalists???) have not managed to detect this, it must be because they are not looking for it in the right way.
Young HY, for example, is always going on at great length about the Orange Book Liberals and the others. I cannot remember when this distinction was first made. I do not think it was within the ranks of the Lib Dems. My memory is that this was a number of essays by leading Lib Dem politicians, thinking and speculating about their own specialist policy areas. Trying to lump these writers together as a separate and dictinct block I suspect came from people who never have been Lib Dems. And this is an attempt to cause divisions within the party. Or at least to create these divisions in the minds of the general public.
The key principle in the Lib Dems is individual freedom. But that is tempered by the need for there to be individual freedom for everybody. This is what the Tories cannot understand. They want freedom for themselves to do whatever they like, but at the same time they want the rest of us to be kept under control.
The challenge for the Lib Dems over the next five years, with their record number of Lib Dems MPs, is to make sure that support and criticism of policies is linked with Lib Dem values. This will then give them a very consistent narrative, one which people can understand. And continue to support.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
Except many of those same people were happily saying good riddance to whingeing remoaners and their businesses after the Brexit vote.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
On the other hand, I'm probably coming home in a couple of years, so it's swings and roundabouts.
But only to countries deemed safe. Namely Brazil and Vietnam
Given that 95% of asylum claims and illegal migration comes from non-safe countries in South Asia and Africa and MENA this won’t make more than a tiny dent. Sorry
Why is it Germany ( a member of the EHCR) can deport people back to Afghansistan and we can't? Or have no will to?
But only to countries deemed safe. Namely Brazil and Vietnam
Given that 95% of asylum claims and illegal migration comes from non-safe countries in South Asia and Africa and MENA this won’t make more than a tiny dent. Sorry
Why is it Germany ( a member of the EHCR) can deport people back to Afghansistan and we can't? Or have no will to?
For the LDs to eclipse the Tories they would have to become a genuine Orange Book centre right party and ditch the social democrats. Essentially the SDP wing of the LDs which merged with the Liberals in the 1980s would have to return to Labour. Only that would see the remaining One Nation centre right wing of the Tories permanently shift to the Liberals. The Tories would also need to lose their hard right ERG wing to Reform who would become the main party of populist Brexiteers and overtake the Tories too...
I think you're assuming an ideological coherence to the Lib Dem vote that isn't there. That's both their superpower and Achilles Heel.
The Lib Dem path to overtaking the Conservatives goes like this:
1. Identify thirty or so target seats. They will be overwhelmingly Conservative-held with a chunky Labour vote to squeeze, most will look like current Lib Dem seats- leafy. 2. Throw the kitchen sink at them for four to five years. 3. Err... 4. That's it really.
Nothing about social democracy vs. orange bookery. Everything about the failings of the government, the uselessnesses of your Tory MP and lots and lots of photos of potholes.
2.5 Win council seats in 2025 and control more councils. 2.6 Fix the potholes.
Fixing the potholes is one of the things Mr Starmer needs to do if he want enough short term feelgood to win his second term, in order for his longer-term policies to come good.
He also needs to fix the shortage of dentists, and the amount of sewage entering our rivers, which are top LD campaigning points.
But only to countries deemed safe. Namely Brazil and Vietnam
Given that 95% of asylum claims and illegal migration comes from non-safe countries in South Asia and Africa and MENA this won’t make more than a tiny dent. Sorry
Why is it Germany ( a member of the EHCR) can deport people back to Afghanistan and we can't? Or have no will to?
German troops weren't occupying Afghanistan for 20 years?
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough i Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
As I have said many times here, starting years ago when the idea was roundly mocked by all and sundry, Britain should have a worldwide network of asylum processing centres, with *no* asylum processing in the UK. This would be far better for genuine asylum seekers, because the centres would be closer to their countries of origin, and of zero interest to fraudulent asylum seekers (at least those without an extremely compelling fake case) because they wouldn't be able to await the verdict in the UK. If Labour implement this I would support them.
What is the incentive for third countries to host these centres, and won't they be surveilled by the secret police of adjacent bad countries?
Well, let's start with the obvious: there are plenty of (developed) countries that do offshore processing of asylum claims, so there is nothing particularly outrageous about the UK doing it too.
And it would be particularly advantageous to us, because there is the issue in the UK where asylum seekers disappear into the informal labour market, never to be seen or heard of again.
With that said, it might simply be easier to - you know - simply fund the asylum and immigration process properly. It takes years for decisions to be reached in the UK, against weeks and months in much of the rest of Europe. That - combined with a large informal labour market - makes us an attractive destination for those whose claims are ... less obvious.
Not to mention the asylum approval rate - waaaaay higher in the UK than in continental Europe.
However, the apeal of the offshore system is that it finally and irrevocably solves the issue. It's a judgement of Solomon policy.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
Except many of those same people were happily saying good riddance to whingeing remoaners and their businesses after the Brexit vote.
But those whinging remoaners didn't leave.
We will see if Leon, Max and thousands like them actually do so.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
On the other hand, I'm probably coming home in a couple of years, so it's swings and roundabouts.
If we can have a few years of stability and a friendly face to our continental cousins we might get some of those wealthy EU nationals back too.
We’ve had 8 years of having “project fear” shouted at us whenever we noted businesses or entrepreneurs leaving British shores after Brexit. The Tories are convinced there’s been zero economic damage from all that restructuring and redomiciliation, much of which I advised on in the years from 2017-2020. Now at the merest hint of a change to CGT those exact same people are going full handbrake turn and insisting that the slightest hair trigger will send the economy into a death spiral.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
On the other hand, I'm probably coming home in a couple of years, so it's swings and roundabouts.
That’s great as long as your contributions outweigh the thirty odd who are in the process of relocating here right now. I know you are doing well and successful but knowing a few of those on their way here it’s going to take some doing just to replace their VAT spend alone. It’s tragic. And the last gov aren’t blameless either with their non-doms changes.
Like I said, it’s not something that makes me happy in a “my team is better than yours” way. I love the UK and want it to be successful and gutting it of industrious wealth creators is not going to help.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The point is their taxes are not supporting nurses because they are not actually paying them and are squealing about having to start.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
Except many of those same people were happily saying good riddance to whingeing remoaners and their businesses after the Brexit vote.
But those whinging remoaners didn't leave.
We will see if Leon, Max and thousands like them actually do so.
Many thousands of skilled and high paid EU nationals did, though.
There is a real balancing act out there, when it comes to non-UK born talent and wealthy individuals. Tax policy absolutely does drive behaviour. We see it in our practice all the time. As we did with Brexit. But British nationals? Not so much. Those remoaners, myself included, and the rich but moany putative Starmer tax victims, are on the whole much more sticky.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The wealth-repellent policies are so egregiously stupid that it's very hard for a conspiracy-inclined person like me to think it's not a deliberate ploy to bankrupt the nation.
Britain should be a magnet for the wealthy. I would revive the heriditary baronetcy, and attach further hereditary baronetcies to properties that needed restoring. If someone bought it, restored it, and lived in it permanently, they would be 'Sir MaxPB', and so would their ancestors as long as they did the same. Leave the country and sell the property, the title dies (it cannot be sold on with the property). No other country could do the same, because let's face it who would want to be a French or German Baronet?
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The point is their taxes are not supporting nurses because they are not actually paying them and are squealing about having to start.
Oh grow up. They are paying huge taxes. Maybe not in the percentages you want to squeeze out of them but they are still paying millions. They are also spending millions a year on things such as cars, gardeners, housekeepers. Every single penny goes into the pot that covers the nurses.
And when that person, who was made to feel hated in the UK because they didn’t hand over every penny they have, is planning to open a new business they will have no reason to put it in the UK.
Every single one of these people will pay more in one year in taxes than people like you in a lifetime but you take the moral high ground.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough
Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
It wouldn't have been half so "offensive" if a Labour government had done it.
We haven't heard the end of offshoring, far from it, and the refugee conventions are not fit for purpose.
If Labour do look to modify those - and I'm not holding my breath - I'll look forward to the howls of outrage from you.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
I thought that there were statistics showing that a lot of these people had already left, that Britain had record high outflows even before the election.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
But only to countries deemed safe. Namely Brazil and Vietnam
Given that 95% of asylum claims and illegal migration comes from non-safe countries in South Asia and Africa and MENA this won’t make more than a tiny dent. Sorry
Why is it Germany ( a member of the EHCR) can deport people back to Afghanistan and we can't? Or have no will to?
German troops weren't occupying Afghanistan for 20 years?
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The logical thing for me to do is dip my income below £100k, maybe work four-days a week, or do a slightly easier job, and pull my kids out of private school to balance it.
At the moment I'm killing myself to do it and can barely keep my head above water.
Of course, the government would (checks notes) lose about £25-27k tax a year from me doing that.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
On the other hand, I'm probably coming home in a couple of years, so it's swings and roundabouts.
If we can have a few years of stability and a friendly face to our continental cousins we might get some of those wealthy EU nationals back too.
We’ve had 8 years of having “project fear” shouted at us whenever we noted businesses or entrepreneurs leaving British shores after Brexit. The Tories are convinced there’s been zero economic damage from all that restructuring and redomiciliation, much of which I advised on in the years from 2017-2020. Now at the merest hint of a change to CGT those exact same people are going full handbrake turn and insisting that the slightest hair trigger will send the economy into a death spiral.
I've been watching, and indeed sometimes engaged in, British politics for a lot of years. The suggestion that a Labour Government will lead to a flight of capital and capitalists, with consequent economic disaster for those of his unable or unwilling to leave, comes up every election and if there were to be any truth or reality in it there would be no capitalists or capital left in this country. I can well imagine my Tory voting grandfather, faced with a Liberal canvasser in 1906, had very much the same view.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
Except many of those same people were happily saying good riddance to whingeing remoaners and their businesses after the Brexit vote.
But those whinging remoaners didn't leave.
We will see if Leon, Max and thousands like them actually do so.
Many thousands of skilled and high paid EU nationals did, though.
There is a real balancing act out there, when it comes to non-UK born talent and wealthy individuals. Tax policy absolutely does drive behaviour. We see it in our practice all the time. As we did with Brexit. But British nationals? Not so much. Those remoaners, myself included, and the rich but moany putative Starmer tax victims, are on the whole much more sticky.
Many thousands of skilled and highly paid EU nationals left the UK every year before the referendum and after the referendum, before Brexit and after Brexit.
And were replaced by thousands of other skilled and highly paid EU nationals.
The skilled and highly paid do not have trouble moving from country to country.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
Yet in sheer number of posts you more than make up for any deficiency in actual Conservative supporters.
The Conservatives need Labour to screw up, which is how you win from Opposition. Then the Reform and Lib Dem problems will solve themselves. It also helps to give people some positive reasons to vote for them, but that's relatively minor.
Labour will do the job for the Conservatives.
They simply won't be able to resist targeting higher earners, and that will hit people in many of the affluent seats the LDs hold.
Anti-Conservative voting can very quickly turn to anti-Labour voting.
And in the LD seats , their bar-charts will show that they are best placed to beat Labour.
It's not that mathematical: if people want Labour out they will stop voting for the LDs and start voting Conservative.
The LDs are a "safe" non-Labour option when people want the Conservatives out.
It doesn't work in reverse. The massive Cleggasm was a huge amount of peddling to stand still, and he still went backwards a bit.
Maybe; maybe not. You're wedded to left v right. It's possible the country no longer is.
I'm wedded to the reality of the voting coalitions in the country. Economic quasi-socialism is almost the best tonic to return many of those southern seats to the Conservatives.
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
So you keep telling us. I might equally well say you're entirely complacent about Tory recovery.
If Labour fail, it will get interesting, and I don't think it at all clear how it will fall out.
I'm not complacent in the slightest, and resent any insinuation that I am.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The point is their taxes are not supporting nurses because they are not actually paying them and are squealing about having to start.
Oh grow up. They are paying huge taxes. Maybe not in the percentages you want to squeeze out of them but they are still paying millions. They are also spending millions a year on things such as cars, gardeners, housekeepers. Every single penny goes into the pot that covers the nurses.
And when that person, who was made to feel hated in the UK because they didn’t hand over every penny they have, is planning to open a new business they will have no reason to put it in the UK.
Every single one of these people will pay more in one year in taxes than people like you in a lifetime but you take the moral high ground.
It's not just the ultra wealthy and successful that Reeves and Starmer will hammer
'Ordinary' modestly successful workers and pensioners maybe those with incomes £50,000 to £100,000 who may be at the bottom end as regards participation on here but overall have done ok, will have their hard worked income and wealth taken by Labour to pay for massive public sector pay rises, associated public sector pension increases and the general waste of money that is associated with Labour.
You may recall the Health and Social Care levy which caused some lively discussions here. It's coming back! Rachel's Redistribution Revenue will tax all income by 2% minimum, you heard it here first.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough i Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
As I have said many times here, starting years ago when the idea was roundly mocked by all and sundry, Britain should have a worldwide network of asylum processing centres, with *no* asylum processing in the UK. This would be far better for genuine asylum seekers, because the centres would be closer to their countries of origin, and of zero interest to fraudulent asylum seekers (at least those without an extremely compelling fake case) because they wouldn't be able to await the verdict in the UK. If Labour implement this I would support them.
What is the incentive for third countries to host these centres, and won't they be surveilled by the secret police of adjacent bad countries?
Well, let's start with the obvious: there are plenty of (developed) countries that do offshore processing of asylum claims, so there is nothing particularly outrageous about the UK doing it too.
And it would be particularly advantageous to us, because there is the issue in the UK where asylum seekers disappear into the informal labour market, never to be seen or heard of again.
With that said, it might simply be easier to - you know - simply fund the asylum and immigration process properly. It takes years for decisions to be reached in the UK, against weeks and months in much of the rest of Europe. That - combined with a large informal labour market - makes us an attractive destination for those whose claims are ... less obvious.
Not to mention the asylum approval rate - waaaaay higher in the UK than in continental Europe.
However, the apeal of the offshore system is that it finally and irrevocably solves the issue. It's a judgement of Solomon policy.
Right. But my impression is Luckyguy is talking about let's say oppressed people in Congo popping over the border to the UK asylum centre in Angola, whereas offshore processing usually means catching people in your own first world country (or the med) and shipping them to Albania or Rwanda
Trump is all over the place. His "campaign" is a rambling mess in response to Harris' laser-focus since she became the Presidential candidate.
His proposal to pay for IVF puts him to the left of Obama on healthcare...
The Republican (or more correctly, MAGA) attacks on IVF, especially with the Alabama legislature's decision (to deem disposing of unused IVF foetuses as murder) has really smacked Trump upside the head. Obama might well have weighed in on IVF being provided by the state if he had been confronted with this situation in his term as President.
Those are very modest numbers, though, probably the lowest hanging fruit and need to be weighed against the increased demand for crossing the Channel post Rwanda.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
Because they’re deporting people whose claims have failed?
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough
Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
It wouldn't have been half so "offensive" if a Labour government had done it.
We haven't heard the end of offshoring, far from it, and the refugee conventions are not fit for purpose.
If Labour do look to modify those - and I'm not holding my breath - I'll look forward to the howls of outrage from you.
It depends how they go about it.
Campaign internationally to update them - in favour Leave the convention - not my choice but if thats the democratic will also fair enough Keep the convention, repeatedly introduce new laws that are inconsistent with it, cost billions of pounds for guaranteed failure and then blame the judges for inevitably applying the laws in accordance with our treaty obligations - madness
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
I thought that there were statistics showing that a lot of these people had already left, that Britain had record high outflows even before the election.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
Ok, my comment is coming from a place of talking to these people, talking to their lawyers and talking to the estate agents who are working every weekend for once showing these people the £6m plus properties, introducing them to the jet charter companies to get them to London in 40 mins if they need to be there.
It’s not me taking a “feeling” and using it to make a political point. This is happening and they are saying - and the guy I’m meeting tomorrow and spoke to on Friday - they are leaving because they believe they are about to be buggered by Labour and squeezed more than they are happy to be anymore.
I honestly thought it wouldn’t materialise but my friends and acquaintances are very surprised at the numbers who are looking at moving.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The point is their taxes are not supporting nurses because they are not actually paying them and are squealing about having to start.
What a load of nonsense, my payslip every month that shows thousands paid in PAYE+NI must just be imaginary then? It's people like you that drive people like me out of the country, Labour are creating a hostile environment for high achievers and people like you are cheering it on and even when faced with the consequences you continue to do so. As I said last night, the final protest that I have left against this is to leave the country, both my wife and I are additional tax rate payers and I think the only tax avoidance I've ever bothered with is having an ISA and using AVCs to avoid the 100k cliff edge for a few years when I was on the cusp of it despite years of advice from a few colleagues to use tax minimisation schemes throughout my career.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
I thought that there were statistics showing that a lot of these people had already left, that Britain had record high outflows even before the election.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
Ok, my comment is coming from a place of talking to these people, talking to their lawyers and talking to the estate agents who are working every weekend for once showing these people the £6m plus properties, introducing them to the jet charter companies to get them to London in 40 mins if they need to be there.
It’s not me taking a “feeling” and using it to make a political point. This is happening and they are saying - and the guy I’m meeting tomorrow and spoke to on Friday - they are leaving because they believe they are about to be buggered by Labour and squeezed more than they are happy to be anymore.
I honestly thought it wouldn’t materialise but my friends and acquaintances are very surprised at the numbers who are looking at moving.
My post started with an observation about statistics - a lot of these wealthy people were already leaving under the Tories - and trying to understand that. I'm obviously not trying to argue that my feels are superior to your anecdote.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The logical thing for me to do is dip my income below £100k, maybe work four-days a week, or do a slightly easier job, and pull my kids out of private school to balance it.
At the moment I'm killing myself to do it and can barely keep my head above water.
Of course, the government would (checks notes) lose about £25-27k tax a year from me doing that.
You should do it CR, honestly I think you should also look at the overseas option. The next 4-5 years here are going to be absolute hell for aspirational people and high achievers, not just in the workplace but in schools too.
Just had some cheeky bets on Verstappen at 23 and Hamilton 25 to win today's Grand Prix.
You never know, safety cars, etc.
I thought the safety car had crashed in practice?
It did.
There's a story from the early 1980s when Prof Watkins (the medical officer at the time) complained that there wasn't a medical car available, and therefore the session could not be run. So Bernie and others looked for a fast car in the parking lot, broke into it, and that was the medical car for the session.
(Or summit like that.)
Thank goodness times have changed. The 'medical facilities' at some circuits in the seventies were muddy tents.
The big change was that Bernie gave “Prof” Sid the power to stop any session at any time, for medical reasons such as unavailability of an air ambulance or facilities at the circuit that weren’t up to scratch. And he did, several times.
Circuits now have dozens of doctors placed amongst the marshals, a medical centre that looks like an intensive care ward, and at least two air ambulances on standby.
All thanks to Jackie Stewart and other drivers convincing Bernie that people didn’t want to watch drivers die on live TV, and that continuing to see two or three funerals every year wasn’t going to make F1 popular with fans.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The UK tax take is lower than that in Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Portugal, Hungary, Czechia, and New Zealand. It’s about the same as Canada and Japan. These other countries are not obviously collapsing because of the flight of high earners. I am unconvinced that UK taxes are so horrendous that they doom our country.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
I thought that there were statistics showing that a lot of these people had already left, that Britain had record high outflows even before the election.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
Ok, my comment is coming from a place of talking to these people, talking to their lawyers and talking to the estate agents who are working every weekend for once showing these people the £6m plus properties, introducing them to the jet charter companies to get them to London in 40 mins if they need to be there.
It’s not me taking a “feeling” and using it to make a political point. This is happening and they are saying - and the guy I’m meeting tomorrow and spoke to on Friday - they are leaving because they believe they are about to be buggered by Labour and squeezed more than they are happy to be anymore.
I honestly thought it wouldn’t materialise but my friends and acquaintances are very surprised at the numbers who are looking at moving.
From the ones I’ve spoken to (private banking) it’s a combination of uncertainty and an ingrained belief that anything over 50% tax is unfair. Quite a few are already paying more than that on some income.
The question is, how mobile people are, and the rate at which they will leave/set up expensive arrangements to reduce their tax bills.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow — with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, “This isn’t fair dealing”, my son, leave the Saxon alone.
Has Lord’s even been this empty for a day of Test cricket in the last couple of decades?
£125 tickets for Sri Lanka will do that. They completely mispriced the test match, treating it like a match against India, SA, Australia or NZ who always attract huge crowds.
Just had some cheeky bets on Verstappen at 23 and Hamilton 25 to win today's Grand Prix.
You never know, safety cars, etc.
I thought the safety car had crashed in practice?
It did.
There's a story from the early 1980s when Prof Watkins (the medical officer at the time) complained that there wasn't a medical car available, and therefore the session could not be run. So Bernie and others looked for a fast car in the parking lot, broke into it, and that was the medical car for the session.
(Or summit like that.)
Thank goodness times have changed. The 'medical facilities' at some circuits in the seventies were muddy tents.
The big change was that Bernie gave “Prof” Sid the power to stop any session at any time, for medical reasons such as unavailability of an air ambulance or facilities at the circuit that weren’t up to scratch. And he did, several times.
Circuits now have dozens of doctors placed amongst the marshals, a medical centre that looks like an intensive care ward, and at least two air ambulances on standby.
All thanks to Jackie Stewart and other drivers convincing Bernie that people didn’t want to watch drivers die on live TV, and that continuing to see two or three funerals every year wasn’t going to make F1 popular with fans.
I gather, from someone in a position to know, that Prof Watkins was not a man to be trifled with!
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The logical thing for me to do is dip my income below £100k, maybe work four-days a week, or do a slightly easier job, and pull my kids out of private school to balance it.
At the moment I'm killing myself to do it and can barely keep my head above water.
Of course, the government would (checks notes) lose about £25-27k tax a year from me doing that.
Seriously, Casino, you should think about doing exactly that. Is your current lifestyle worth the additional stress?
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
On the other hand, I'm probably coming home in a couple of years, so it's swings and roundabouts.
Doubtful though that returners will be anywhere near the level of leavers.Plus you can always leave lots of your cash out of their reach when returning.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The UK tax take is lower than that in Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Portugal, Hungary, Czechia, and New Zealand. It’s about the same as Canada and Japan. These other countries are not obviously collapsing because of the flight of high earners. I am unconvinced that UK taxes are so horrendous that they doom our country.
The UK tax take is higher than Switzerland, Singapore, UAE, USA, Australia, Saudi Arabia, all countries going out of their way to attract high earners from around the globe to relocate themselves and their businesses.
But only to countries deemed safe. Namely Brazil and Vietnam
Given that 95% of asylum claims and illegal migration comes from non-safe countries in South Asia and Africa and MENA this won’t make more than a tiny dent. Sorry
Why is it Germany ( a member of the EHCR) can deport people back to Afghansistan and we can't? Or have no will to?
Are our courts more liberal than theirs?
yes we are soft marks, any tom , dick or Harry can come here and guarantee they will not get chucked out , unless they are bringing money and jobs etc , then they will get the boot.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
I thought that there were statistics showing that a lot of these people had already left, that Britain had record high outflows even before the election.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
Ok, my comment is coming from a place of talking to these people, talking to their lawyers and talking to the estate agents who are working every weekend for once showing these people the £6m plus properties, introducing them to the jet charter companies to get them to London in 40 mins if they need to be there.
It’s not me taking a “feeling” and using it to make a political point. This is happening and they are saying - and the guy I’m meeting tomorrow and spoke to on Friday - they are leaving because they believe they are about to be buggered by Labour and squeezed more than they are happy to be anymore.
I honestly thought it wouldn’t materialise but my friends and acquaintances are very surprised at the numbers who are looking at moving.
From the ones I’ve spoken to (private banking) it’s a combination of uncertainty and an ingrained belief that anything over 50% tax is unfair. Quite a few are already paying more than that on some income.
The question is, how mobile people are, and the rate at which they will leave/set up expensive arrangements to reduce their tax bills.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow — with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, “This isn’t fair dealing”, my son, leave the Saxon alone.
Even if Labour raise taxes, they could sweeten it a little by ensuring no one pays over 50% in effective tax on their earnings. That would involve some fiddly reforms, but that's the kind of thing the Treasury/HMRC should be capable of.
By "effective", I would include student loans and universal credit taper rates. The "working taxes guarantee".
All the signalling is that they are more likely to go for cuts to universal benefits rather than significant tax rises on earnings. Maybe something on CGT, but nothing radical. Perhaps some additional council tax bands and income tax NICs consolidation over the long term. It will be thoroughly meh, in line with the vibe.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
I thought that there were statistics showing that a lot of these people had already left, that Britain had record high outflows even before the election.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
Ok, my comment is coming from a place of talking to these people, talking to their lawyers and talking to the estate agents who are working every weekend for once showing these people the £6m plus properties, introducing them to the jet charter companies to get them to London in 40 mins if they need to be there.
It’s not me taking a “feeling” and using it to make a political point. This is happening and they are saying - and the guy I’m meeting tomorrow and spoke to on Friday - they are leaving because they believe they are about to be buggered by Labour and squeezed more than they are happy to be anymore.
I honestly thought it wouldn’t materialise but my friends and acquaintances are very surprised at the numbers who are looking at moving.
So, it’s not about anything Labour has done or said they’ll do, it’s about people’s fears of what Labour might do? Presumably when the Telegraph scaremongering proves to be untrue, they’ll all decide to stay.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
I thought that there were statistics showing that a lot of these people had already left, that Britain had record high outflows even before the election.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
Ok, my comment is coming from a place of talking to these people, talking to their lawyers and talking to the estate agents who are working every weekend for once showing these people the £6m plus properties, introducing them to the jet charter companies to get them to London in 40 mins if they need to be there.
It’s not me taking a “feeling” and using it to make a political point. This is happening and they are saying - and the guy I’m meeting tomorrow and spoke to on Friday - they are leaving because they believe they are about to be buggered by Labour and squeezed more than they are happy to be anymore.
I honestly thought it wouldn’t materialise but my friends and acquaintances are very surprised at the numbers who are looking at moving.
So, it’s not about anything Labour has done or said they’ll do, it’s about people’s fears of what Labour might do? Presumably when the Telegraph scaremongering proves to be untrue, they’ll all decide to stay.
It's expectation management and the budget will be an anti-climax as a result. The Telegraph are doing Labour's dirty work.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
I thought that there were statistics showing that a lot of these people had already left, that Britain had record high outflows even before the election.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
Ok, my comment is coming from a place of talking to these people, talking to their lawyers and talking to the estate agents who are working every weekend for once showing these people the £6m plus properties, introducing them to the jet charter companies to get them to London in 40 mins if they need to be there.
It’s not me taking a “feeling” and using it to make a political point. This is happening and they are saying - and the guy I’m meeting tomorrow and spoke to on Friday - they are leaving because they believe they are about to be buggered by Labour and squeezed more than they are happy to be anymore.
I honestly thought it wouldn’t materialise but my friends and acquaintances are very surprised at the numbers who are looking at moving.
So, it’s not about anything Labour has done or said they’ll do, it’s about people’s fears of what Labour might do? Presumably when the Telegraph scaremongering proves to be untrue, they’ll all decide to stay.
I would be surprised if any of them read the telegraph. Funnily enough these sorts of people analyse loads of information sources and make decisions accordingly, not just packing the house up because a grumpy front page on the telegraph.
Catching up on overnight thread and @MaxPB’s frustrations and the inevitable responses.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
The point is their taxes are not supporting nurses because they are not actually paying them and are squealing about having to start.
Oh grow up. They are paying huge taxes. Maybe not in the percentages you want to squeeze out of them but they are still paying millions. They are also spending millions a year on things such as cars, gardeners, housekeepers. Every single penny goes into the pot that covers the nurses.
And when that person, who was made to feel hated in the UK because they didn’t hand over every penny they have, is planning to open a new business they will have no reason to put it in the UK.
Every single one of these people will pay more in one year in taxes than people like you in a lifetime but you take the moral high ground.
Nothing as stupid as the great unwashed who think hard working people who make it good are there to keep the unwashed fed and watered in style. Thick does not cover their stupidity.
I completely agree with TSE on the LD danger to the Tories. The 49 seat gap has been largely ignored so far. It clearly places the LDs in range of being the principal opposition, with all that implies and entails. 25 seats changing hands, Tory to LD, is enough. 2024 tells us that 25 seats is not many. This is astonishing for the party which recently met in a telephone box.
One has to bear in mind what most voters want: They want a centrist party that is competent, tough and honest, and does maximal good and minimum harm. This is what gives Labour a chance at this minute (ignore the talk, wait and see). Let us agree that the Tories currently have forfeited the public's support on all the above fronts.
Because the Tories have vacated the space, there are two centrist parties not in meltdown: Lab and LD. As yet there is no evidence that the Tories plan to be a third, but it's not impossible.
Lab and LD are positioned in almost all English seats thus: Safe Labour, Safe LD (few), Lab v Con; LD v Con. There are still of course safe Con seats but not as many as there were (!).
LD and Lab do not threaten each other. They are beautifully placed to slice up England to their mutual convenience.
Labour will believe, and may be right, that under such a regime the LDs could not possibly beat them but would always come second. LDs would take this as compared with always coming last.
If this does not give the current shower running the Tories nightmares, what will?
Comments
If Labour come for those voters, and the Conservatives sort themselves out, there's only one obvious place such voters will go.
What the couch fucker and other conservatives don't understand about middle aged women is, attacking our self-worth doesn't work like it does on the teenagers and 20-somethings they normally prey on. We're basically immune to that type of shit by this age.
https://x.com/MissesDread/status/1829970805293551826
Curiously no match ups with Cleverly quoted.
Given that 95% of asylum claims and illegal migration comes from non-safe countries in South Asia and Africa and MENA this won’t make more than a tiny dent. Sorry
Liberal Democrat enthusiasts are hugely overrepresented on this site, and are getting high on their own supply.
At most, the Tories can promise to cut taxes on high earners, but that may do them no favours in Red Wall and Tuquiose coast seats.
I might equally well say you're entirely complacent about Tory recovery.
If Labour fail, it will get interesting, and I don't think it at all clear how it will fall out.
Bonking is caused by a depletion of glycogen, or stored glucose, in the body. It can lead to a sudden loss of energy and symptoms such as: fatigue, heavy limbs, dizziness, hunger, leg cramps, and extreme weakness."
It sorta relates to a conversation on here the other day, about nutrition whilst running.
We had friends round yesterday afternoon, and I snacked on biscuits and crisps so much that I didn't have a 'proper' evening meal. I did an 11k run early this morning, before breakfast which I should usually have no trouble with, but I found it a real struggle after about 7k. I continued running, just, but it was far from enjoyable. I virtually never have it happen on a short run like this.
All because I had been an idiot with my food (and drink...) the previous day.
(edit: snap!)
There's always plenty of entertainment to be found in @HYUFD's attempts to analyse the inner workings of the Liberal Democrats. Whether he actually knows any Lib Dems I'm not sure but the concepts of "Orange Bookers" versus "Social Democrats" is as outdated as talking about "Wets" and "Drys" in terms of the Conservative Party.
Like any other party, the LDs has its factions but I can assure you no one talks about Orange Bookers and Social Democrats and hasn't done in well over a decade.
Putting that nonsense to one side, the one thing which unites all factions in any party is victory and the one thing that accentuates all factions in any party is defeat (Stodge's Fourteenth Law of Politics, in case you weren't asking).
With 72 MPs, the LDs are a happy and united band currently and while there will be plenty of celebrations at the Brighton Conference in the middle of the month, rather as the spider climbing out of the bowl, the journey gets tougher and steeper from here.
The fact remains of the next 50 LD targets, 38 are held by the Conservatives and the fortunes of the LDs are if not in the control of, then certainly symbiotically linked to, the fortunes of the Conservative Party.
I'm sure any sensible Conservative isn't working on the assumption discontent with the Government is going to transfer automatically and completely to the Conservatives - indeed, with Reform, the LDs and Greens you have a multi-polar opposition environment which won't always work to the benefit of the lead Opposition party.
IF Starmer gets through the next 18-36 months of problems and as someone nearly once said things do seem to get better (for which he may not be wholly responsible but for which he'll take any credit going but that's politics), Labour may will canter home to re-election. The worse it gets, the longer he'll hang on just in case, pace Micawber, something does turn up.
For the LDs, that's both an opportunity and a challenge - the scars of the Coalition run deep and it'll be a very cold day in a very hot place before the Party goes down that road again. It may also be the LD experience will be a cautionary tale for Reform were they even to consider propping up a minority Conservative administration after the next GE.
It's interesting there are no howls of outrage about them being far-right nazis and fascists when Labour do it, though. So many in the civil service and third sector are willing to give them a pass, rather than do a go-slow or launch lawfare in a way the Conservatives got every time.
2020 is the first time in modern history that a (Presidential) candidate received more votes than the number of people who stayed home.
https://x.com/StatisticUrban/status/1829997807958368657
@JohnRentoul
Unusual Condorcet cycle in this poll: Tugendhat beats Jenrick, who beats Badenoch, who beats Tugendhat
It's different to normal exhaustion - I can usually grit my teeth and push through that. I couldn't daydream which is a disaster.
I think the conditions are potentially ripe for a sizeable chunk of the electorate to throw their hands up and say “I don’t want either of you two anymore”, next time.
I don't dislike it as an experience but it's sub-optimal for performance.
This was always the problem with the Rwanda policy: it didn’t differentiate between genuine and bogus claimants. It was a one way ticket, completely offensive to most people’s senses of natural justice (when they actually knew how it worked - polling showed most thought it was just offshore processing).
Assessing claims and deporting those whose claims fail? Fine
Taking people temporarily to an offshore site to process? Also fine, if that’s really cost effective and not just about trying to look tough
Denying people their rights under the refugee convention, regardless of the merits of their claim? Decidedly not fine.
What you describe might happen but it requires many people to completely change their minds, especially what they think about the Conservative Party.
There's four parts to this process (and please correct me as I'm probably wrong). The initial "six become four" before the Conference, then the four "hopefuls" get to rant before an audience of defeated and depressed activists (popcorn at the ready), then the MPs whittle four down to two before the membership ballot.
The four survivors from the first round of voting will go to Conference and throw as much red meat to the activists as said activists can digest each outdoing the other to try to be more, well, "Conservative" (obviously not), but more "Reform-lite" perhaps.
The problem is impressing the activists at Conference won't work if you don't get through the post-Conference ballot of MPs so do you pitch your Conference speech to the activists or to the MPs? That's the challenge....
Previously, I've thought the Conservative ceiling in Scotland could therefore be quite high, maybe even into the 30s as it was under Thatcher (but depends on some Tartan Tories giving up on independence).
But Reform's ceiling? I can't see it going over 20%, which means that the Right in Scotland has taken a step back by splitting like this. That's fine in terms of Holyrood, but at Westminster that opens more seats up to the Lib Dems and SNP in the Scottish shires.
I know we will get the number eligible to vote at some point.
Tugendhat beats Jenrick, Jenrick beats Badenoch but Badenoch beats Tugendhat.
It's a thought...
The athletics sense is traced by active.com back to a 1950s film, which of course suggests it was in use before then.
https://www.active.com/triathlon/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-bonking
Young HY, for example, is always going on at great length about the Orange Book Liberals and the others. I cannot remember when this distinction was first made. I do not think it was within the ranks of the Lib Dems. My memory is that this was a number of essays by leading Lib Dem politicians, thinking and speculating about their own specialist policy areas. Trying to lump these writers together as a separate and dictinct block I suspect came from people who never have been Lib Dems. And this is an attempt to cause divisions within the party. Or at least to create these divisions in the minds of the general public.
The key principle in the Lib Dems is individual freedom. But that is tempered by the need for there to be individual freedom for everybody. This is what the Tories cannot understand. They want freedom for themselves to do whatever they like, but at the same time they want the rest of us to be kept under control.
The challenge for the Lib Dems over the next five years, with their record number of Lib Dems MPs, is to make sure that support and criticism of policies is linked with Lib Dem values. This will then give them a very consistent narrative, one which people can understand. And continue to support.
And to answer your other question, I don't see that the applicants would be under any greater threat of surveillance within such a compound than on a journey to the UK.
Where I am, since the election, there has been a massive surge of people from the UK coming over, checking out the schools, seeing houses and spending a few days to decide if this is where they want to move to. These are very wealthy people but not lazy unearned wealth. These people make and made squillions in the UK and for the UK.
They are absolutely leaving the UK because of how they are going to be rogered for being successful.
Then you think if that many people are looking at moving here how many are looking at other jurisdictions.
So everyone here who says “good riddance”, remember their taxes will no longer be paying your nurses. They will no longer be supporting charities because they will be, as their peers who already are here, supporting charities here.
When they set up new parts of their businesses, because as I said they aren’t lazy, these businesses won’t be in the uk anymore.
I’m not crowing, it doesn’t change my life, but when you lose a few thousand very wealthy business people the UK will be worse off and I want a strong, happy and wealthy UK.
So when you see articles saying “we’re leaving because Starmer taxes” it’s not an empty threat. This is happening now. I am meeting one tomorrow and the tax and spend you are losing is millions - many many Foxy’s and other NHS staff.
And it would be particularly advantageous to us, because there is the issue in the UK where asylum seekers disappear into the informal labour market, never to be seen or heard of again.
With that said, it might simply be easier to - you know - simply fund the asylum and immigration process properly. It takes years for decisions to be reached in the UK, against weeks and months in much of the rest of Europe. That - combined with a large informal labour market - makes us an attractive destination for those whose claims are ... less obvious.
The introduction was written by Paul Marshall.
However, the apeal of the offshore system is that it finally and irrevocably solves the issue. It's a judgement of Solomon policy.
We will see if Leon, Max and thousands like them actually do so.
We’ve had 8 years of having “project fear” shouted at us whenever we noted businesses or entrepreneurs leaving British shores after Brexit. The Tories are convinced there’s been zero economic damage from all that restructuring and redomiciliation, much of which I advised on in the years from 2017-2020. Now at the merest hint of a change to CGT those exact same people are going full handbrake turn and insisting that the slightest hair trigger will send the economy into a death spiral.
Like I said, it’s not something that makes me happy in a “my team is better than yours” way. I love the UK and want it to be successful and gutting it of industrious wealth creators is not going to help.
On the larger issue of the people smugglers and the black economy, I’ve already outlined a policy that would be acceptable to even the Corbynites.
There is a real balancing act out there, when it comes to non-UK born talent and wealthy individuals. Tax policy absolutely does drive behaviour. We see it in our practice all the time. As we did with Brexit. But British nationals? Not so much. Those remoaners, myself included, and the rich but moany putative Starmer tax victims, are on the whole much more sticky.
Britain should be a magnet for the wealthy. I would revive the heriditary baronetcy, and attach further hereditary baronetcies to properties that needed restoring. If someone bought it, restored it, and lived in it permanently, they would be 'Sir MaxPB', and so would their ancestors as long as they did the same. Leave the country and sell the property, the title dies (it cannot be sold on with the property). No other country could do the same, because let's face it who would want to be a French or German Baronet?
And when that person, who was made to feel hated in the UK because they didn’t hand over every penny they have, is planning to open a new business they will have no reason to put it in the UK.
Every single one of these people will pay more in one year in taxes than people like you in a lifetime but you take the moral high ground.
We haven't heard the end of offshoring, far from it, and the refugee conventions are not fit for purpose.
If Labour do look to modify those - and I'm not holding my breath - I'll look forward to the howls of outrage from you.
Now, that's obviously an issue, but the reasons for it are a bit more complicated than, "they're running away from labour tax increases."
The challenge for Labour is doubtless a stiff one. They need to create a sense of shared endeavour. There needs to be opportunity. They need to make the country work, so that those who pay a lot of tax don't think it's all being wasted.
I don't get the sense that all of these people would have stuck around, or would stick around, if only their taxes were cut. There's a lot more going on than that, even if it might prove to be a last straw for many.
At the moment I'm killing myself to do it and can barely keep my head above water.
Of course, the government would (checks notes) lose about £25-27k tax a year from me doing that.
I can well imagine my Tory voting grandfather, faced with a Liberal canvasser in 1906, had very much the same view.
And were replaced by thousands of other skilled and highly paid EU nationals.
The skilled and highly paid do not have trouble moving from country to country.
'Ordinary' modestly successful workers and pensioners maybe those with incomes £50,000 to £100,000 who may be at the bottom end as regards participation on here but overall have done ok, will have their hard worked income and wealth taken by Labour to pay for massive public sector pay rises, associated public sector pension increases and the general waste of money that is associated with Labour.
You may recall the Health and Social Care levy which caused some lively discussions here. It's coming back! Rachel's Redistribution Revenue will tax all income by 2% minimum, you heard it here first.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/757609/EPRS_BRI(2024)757609_EN.pdf
Campaign internationally to update them - in favour
Leave the convention - not my choice but if thats the democratic will also fair enough
Keep the convention, repeatedly introduce new laws that are inconsistent with it, cost billions of pounds for guaranteed failure and then blame the judges for inevitably applying the laws in accordance with our treaty obligations - madness
It’s not me taking a “feeling” and using it to make a political point. This is happening and they are saying - and the guy I’m meeting tomorrow and spoke to on Friday - they are leaving because they believe they are about to be buggered by Labour and squeezed more than they are happy to be anymore.
I honestly thought it wouldn’t materialise but my friends and acquaintances are very surprised at the numbers who are looking at moving.
Circuits now have dozens of doctors placed amongst the marshals, a medical centre that looks like an intensive care ward, and at least two air ambulances on standby.
All thanks to Jackie Stewart and other drivers convincing Bernie that people didn’t want to watch drivers die on live TV, and that continuing to see two or three funerals every year wasn’t going to make F1 popular with fans.
The question is, how mobile people are, and the rate at which they will leave/set up expensive arrangements to reduce their tax bills.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow — with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, “This isn’t fair dealing”, my son, leave the Saxon alone.
By "effective", I would include student loans and universal credit taper rates. The "working taxes guarantee".
All the signalling is that they are more likely to go for cuts to universal benefits rather than significant tax rises on earnings. Maybe something on CGT, but nothing radical. Perhaps some additional council tax bands and income tax NICs consolidation over the long term. It will be thoroughly meh, in line with the vibe.
https://x.com/Jas_Athwal/status/1830146339218268396
One has to bear in mind what most voters want: They want a centrist party that is competent, tough and honest, and does maximal good and minimum harm. This is what gives Labour a chance at this minute (ignore the talk, wait and see). Let us agree that the Tories currently have forfeited the public's support on all the above fronts.
Because the Tories have vacated the space, there are two centrist parties not in meltdown: Lab and LD. As yet there is no evidence that the Tories plan to be a third, but it's not impossible.
Lab and LD are positioned in almost all English seats thus: Safe Labour, Safe LD (few), Lab v Con; LD v Con. There are still of course safe Con seats but not as many as there were (!).
LD and Lab do not threaten each other. They are beautifully placed to slice up England to their mutual convenience.
Labour will believe, and may be right, that under such a regime the LDs could not possibly beat them but would always come second. LDs would take this as compared with always coming last.
If this does not give the current shower running the Tories nightmares, what will?