Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
The 25% is the suggested number of millionaire pensioners and I did not say 75% needed the WFA but many millions do
The poorest pensioners are still getting the WFP. So, we’re talking about a slice of pensioners who get too much to be covered by pension credit, but for whom the payment will make a difference. You get pension credit if your income is less than £11.3k… if you’re single; different rules for married couples; housing benefit and some other benefits not included in the income calculation; there’s a higher threshold if you are disabled or caring; certain housing costs are additionally covered; etc.
So, the question is, do pensioners (without disabilities and not in a caring role, with no additional housing costs) who get £12k a year need WFP?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Given that there’s a Football Governance Bill potentially about to make its way through Parliament, keeping a careful eye on MPs and especially ministers accepting hospitality from anyone involved in football is what any good journalist should be doing.
Expensive clothing etc just looks bad, there’s much better ways of doing this as suggested above - get UK designers to dress Lady Starmer, and lend her the clothes in exchange for the publicity.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Ok but then you have ongoings like the brutalities in the West Bank and the collective punishment meted out to the population of Gaza. Targeted Israeli actions such as this one aren't serving as alternatives to all that, are they. It's both.
And the motive/consequences here. Is it defensive or to escalate towards a regional war? Whose interests are being furthered, Israel's or Netanyahu's? Hezbollah have been humiliated, yes, but haven't the US also been? How long can an 'all funding no leverage' situation go on for?
Little to celebrate here, as far as I can see, other than the technical prowess of the operation.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
Nevertheless persons associated with the Conservative Party stole £15 billion from the state in corrupt Covid deals. Someone buying a couple of frocks for Mrs Starmer and match tickets for the Leader of the Opposition is two orders of magnitude less corrupt.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
I made no personal sleight at you and hope your health improves – that was not the point of my post, as I hope you know. But, you have decided to become outraged by a trivial matter – "bloke declares wife's gifts late but then rectifies the error". That's it.
P.S. you're writing "you are simply wrong" doesn't make me so. Engage with my points: what part of my OP was wrong? Go ahead...
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
I would expect any PM to be an Arsenal fan and go to matches because he wants to. I would expect the PM usually to pay his way, like people on minimum wage have to, and the state to pick up a massive bill for the security costs of him being there.
He might learn a lot if he joined, for example, the Carlisle United away crowd on the journey, the match, and the return when playing Gillingham on a wet Tuesday night in January.
On this I rather feel sorry for Starmer. He will need his security team around him, as a sad fact of modern life. How then does he get to watch Arsenal? In his season ticketed seat? Logistics seem to mitigate against that. So the club steps in and he gets 'free' hospitality. And then is portrayed in a negative light for wanting to engage in his hobby of watching Arsenal.
The obvious thing would seem to be that he pays for
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Was wondering for a sec why there were Russian tanks in Scotland
I also think that Scotland needs a period of stability - and ideally not under Russian or Ukrainian control - before having another referendum
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
This argument seems to be your lot were worse but then Starmer stood on honesty and integrity and receiving £100,000 for goodies and freebies is simply inappropriate and certainly is not acceptable to the public according to the polls
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Quite so. G's was yet another low-information post. Similar to the odious Sarah Vine who suggested he should "just watch the games on telly like everyone else". I submit that she knows sweet FA about football and even less about proper football fans, you know, the people who actually attend matches.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
This is whether he broke the rules. It’s whether he *ought* to have taken the gift
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
It's as creepy as hell, and it's only not corruption because politicians make the rules about what constitutes corruption in politicians. We don't let judges or policemen or planning officials have their wives dressed up by other people.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Totally tangential, a video from the other day about a road "paved with German helmets".
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
As an aside to the German helmets in British roads story, after the First World War, a number of German fighter planes were given to British schools (sans machine guns, one imagines).
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Given that there’s a Football Governance Bill potentially about to make its way through Parliament, keeping a careful eye on MPs and especially ministers accepting hospitality from anyone involved in football is what any good journalist should be doing.
Expensive clothing etc just looks bad, there’s much better ways of doing this as suggested above - get UK designers to dress Lady Starmer, and lend her the clothes in exchange for the publicity.
A part of the enthusiasm for big finance for football is the access it creates. Politicians pretty much *have* to listen to the big club owners.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
And there is a decent argument that she *should* have an allowance.
She’s not an employee or in a public role, but will incur additional costs when acting in her capacity as the PMs wife. It’s reasonable that the state should pay
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
(1) can’t you use EIS or SEIS?
There are quite a few of these schemes about, they all come with strings attached and affect how your company is allowed to be structured. The one you're referring to is more for companies than individual investors, although it does offer tax perks for investors. The big one is entrepreneur's tax relief, but this was reduced from £10m to £1m by the last government and I wouldn't be surprised to see it completely abolished - I certainly wouldn't be betting on it being there if making a disposal in 5 years time. I know people who have already left for Dubai due to being over the £1m limit.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
I made no personal sleight at you and hope your health improves – that was not the point of my post, as I hope you know. But, you have decided to become outraged by a trivial matter – "bloke declares wife's gifts late but then rectifies the error". That's it.
P.S. you're writing "you are simply wrong" doesn't make me so. Engage with my points: what part of my OP was wrong? Go ahead...
The test of opinion on this was the yougov poll which effectively said 62% wrong 13% right so yes you are out of step with public opinion
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Blimey, 10 years. How time flies when you get older. My memories of that day are still vivid. Nothing political in my entire life has come close to being so significant and so anxious.
I think Salmond contrived the optimal circumstances for Yes. He had a Tory PM who was (inevitably) unpopular in Scotland. He had Better Together led by Alastair Darling who could not bring himself to say very much that was positive about a UK led by a Tory PM reliant on English seats. This made the Better Together campaign excessively negative with warnings about how bad things would be rather than proclaiming a successful union out of which Scotland has done extremely well. There was still a lot more oil in the North Sea and at that time, at least, there was no hesitation in extracting it.
Few of these positives are now available to the SNP but it does have to be recognised that Scotland feels a lot less a fully functioning part of the UK than it did in 2014. More and more of our governance is determined in Holyrood and the steps taken after the Referendum accentuated that. Even to me as a die hard Unionist so many of the stories about what is happening in Westminster seem of no obvious relevance to us.
The Union needs some attention and some love. Occasional, half hearted attempts to rebrand the UK government in Scotland didn't really cut it. If we end up in 2026 with a Labour led administration on both sides of the border I very much hope time and effort is spent finding things we can work together on constructively rather than fight about.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
A bit off to weaponise your health issues like that. Clearly not what he meant
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yep and it's the done thing - people expect the PM to be there at the Euro finals say and likewise the FA (or whoever) is happy to provide the seat for free.
It's a complete none story - but I can see why the SKS haters on here love it so much...
Starmer seems to go to every Arsenal match he can.
I would expect any PM to be an Arsenal fan and go to matches because he wants to. I would expect the PM usually to pay his way, like people on minimum wage have to, and the state to pick up a massive bill for the security costs of him being there.
He might learn a lot if he joined, for example, the Carlisle United away crowd on the journey, the match, and the return when playing Gillingham on a wet Tuesday night in January.
On this I rather feel sorry for Starmer. He will need his security team around him, as a sad fact of modern life. How then does he get to watch Arsenal? In his season ticketed seat? Logistics seem to mitigate against that. So the club steps in and he gets 'free' hospitality. And then is portrayed in a negative light for wanting to engage in his hobby of watching Arsenal.
Indeed. Well put. This is not difficult to understand unless one is wilfully ignorant.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
I made no personal sleight at you and hope your health improves – that was not the point of my post, as I hope you know. But, you have decided to become outraged by a trivial matter – "bloke declares wife's gifts late but then rectifies the error". That's it.
P.S. you're writing "you are simply wrong" doesn't make me so. Engage with my points: what part of my OP was wrong? Go ahead...
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
A bit off to weaponise your health issues like that. Clearly not what he meant
To be honest clutching at pearls is not necessary and yes I am sensitive to.my health issues
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists. Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants. Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
And there is a decent argument that she *should* have an allowance.
She’s not an employee or in a public role, but will incur additional costs when acting in her capacity as the PMs wife. It’s reasonable that the state should pay
Good post. There is certainly a case for that, but in the absence of such an allowance it seems reasonable that the Labour Party should pay, which in effect it did – it's just that one of its biggest donors ringfenced the funding for her wardrobe rather than chucked it into general party coffers (which could then be pissed up the wall at various party events).
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Answer: Starmer pays for his ticket; Arsenal very kindly provide whatever is needed seat/position wise for security so saving the tax payer. Starmer's honour secured, Arsenal get good publicity. Another 1-0 home win for the Arsenal.
It's almost certainly cheaper and easier for Arsenal just to give him a free hospitality pass for the matches, it a suite that is setup to accommodate his security detail, without the club's staff jumping through ludicrous logistical hoops every home game.
That's all fine of course. The point being that Starmer needs to pay for his ticket - that element of the hospitality pass. Not the whole palaver, which is a matter for the tax payer and Arsenal. of course this is a tedious detail. You would have thought that after Boris, Blair, Beergate and so on, PMs would know that every tedious detail matters, and that we want PMs who are exemplary in their public facing lives WRT integrity and ordinary honest and honourable conduct.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Totally tangential, a video from the other day about a road "paved with German helmets".
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
As an aside to the German helmets in British roads story, after the First World War, a number of German fighter planes were given to British schools (sans machine guns, one imagines).
"(sans machine guns, one imagines)"
That's the kind of slacker thinking that stopped the master in charge let us fire the Boyes .55 in the CCF armoury.
Vote Malmesbury for UnDictator - a Davy Crockett in the CCF armoury of every school.
"Threatening us with nuclear weapons, Mr Putin? My twelve year old has nuclear weapons."
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I was attempting to use an easy to understand metaphor on a BETTING site, but my point seems to have gone utterly over your head, so let me explain again.
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
You are simply wrong on trying to defend the indefensible and personal insults do not help your case, not least because I am grateful to still get out of bed In the morning in view of my health issues
I made no personal sleight at you and hope your health improves – that was not the point of my post, as I hope you know. But, you have decided to become outraged by a trivial matter – "bloke declares wife's gifts late but then rectifies the error". That's it.
P.S. you're writing "you are simply wrong" doesn't make me so. Engage with my points: what part of my OP was wrong? Go ahead...
The test of opinion on this was the yougov poll which effectively said 62% wrong 13% right so yes you are out of step with public opinion
So what? That a majority of the public support a certain view when asked by pollsters doesn't make that view necessarily right. A majority of the public support lots of things that I disagree with.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
The pagers were effectively being used as weapons of war. One could argue anyone who allowed a non-combatant to handle the pagers was like a soldier allowing a non-combatant to handle their gun or grenades.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
Quite a lot of CGT gain just reflects inflation. So you're being taxed on not losing money, which seems a bit harsh whatever way you look at it.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I don't see CGT going to 45%, unless iHT also rises.
And I see iHT changes more around thresholds not rates, unless a lower rate is applied more broadly. That would be sensible, but I don't see it as am early change.
Blimey, 10 years. How time flies when you get older. My memories of that day are still vivid. Nothing political in my entire life has come close to being so significant and so anxious.
I think Salmond contrived the optimal circumstances for Yes. He had a Tory PM who was (inevitably) unpopular in Scotland. He had Better Together led by Alastair Darling who could not bring himself to say very much that was positive about a UK led by a Tory PM reliant on English seats. This made the Better Together campaign excessively negative with warnings about how bad things would be rather than proclaiming a successful union out of which Scotland has done extremely well. There was still a lot more oil in the North Sea and at that time, at least, there was no hesitation in extracting it.
Few of these positives are now available to the SNP but it does have to be recognised that Scotland feels a lot less a fully functioning part of the UK than it did in 2014. More and more of our governance is determined in Holyrood and the steps taken after the Referendum accentuated that. Even to me as a die hard Unionist so many of the stories about what is happening in Westminster seem of no obvious relevance to us.
The Union needs some attention and some love. Occasional, half hearted attempts to rebrand the UK government in Scotland didn't really cut it. If we end up in 2026 with a Labour led administration on both sides of the border I very much hope time and effort is spent finding things we can work together on constructively rather than fight about.
I wish it had been closer. Then Cameron might must have been so complacent over the Brexit vote.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Totally tangential, a video from the other day about a road "paved with German helmets".
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
As an aside to the German helmets in British roads story, after the First World War, a number of German fighter planes were given to British schools (sans machine guns, one imagines).
"(sans machine guns, one imagines)"
That's the kind of slacker thinking that stopped the master in charge let us fire the Boyes .55 in the CCF armoury.
Vote Malmesbury for UnDictator - a Davy Crockett in the CCF armoury of every school.
"Threatening us with nuclear weapons, Mr Putin? My twelve year old has nuclear weapons."
When William Came, a 1913 novel by Saki, is a dystopian fantasy about England under German rule. One example of intolerable oppression is that except for the usual sporting rifles and shotguns, it is illegal to possess firearms without a licence.
Mind you there's two sides to all arguments. I strongly feel that for planes given to primary schools the weapons should be converted to single shot.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists. Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants. Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Hezbollah’s purpose is not to blow people to pieces, although they do often blow people to pieces. They are an active political party in Lebanon who have been involved in several coalition governments. They are also a large, Iranian-backed militia force opposed to Israel. It’s complicated.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Blimey, 10 years. How time flies when you get older. My memories of that day are still vivid. Nothing political in my entire life has come close to being so significant and so anxious.
I think Salmond contrived the optimal circumstances for Yes. He had a Tory PM who was (inevitably) unpopular in Scotland. He had Better Together led by Alastair Darling who could not bring himself to say very much that was positive about a UK led by a Tory PM reliant on English seats. This made the Better Together campaign excessively negative with warnings about how bad things would be rather than proclaiming a successful union out of which Scotland has done extremely well. There was still a lot more oil in the North Sea and at that time, at least, there was no hesitation in extracting it.
Few of these positives are now available to the SNP but it does have to be recognised that Scotland feels a lot less a fully functioning part of the UK than it did in 2014. More and more of our governance is determined in Holyrood and the steps taken after the Referendum accentuated that. Even to me as a die hard Unionist so many of the stories about what is happening in Westminster seem of no obvious relevance to us.
The Union needs some attention and some love. Occasional, half hearted attempts to rebrand the UK government in Scotland didn't really cut it. If we end up in 2026 with a Labour led administration on both sides of the border I very much hope time and effort is spent finding things we can work together on constructively rather than fight about.
I wish it had been closer. Then Cameron might must have been so complacent over the Brexit vote.
I wish Yes won. Then we would probably have never had the Referendum.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Mandy Rice Davies springs to mind
As Anabobz says, technically SKS has done little wrong, that one failure to declare that has come out so far aside. But still. He's accepted more in gifts than any other party leader of recent times (including, it would appear, almost incredibly, Boris Johnson and Tony Blair - neither reputed to be shy of living the high life at someone else's expense.) In the four years or so he's been leader - one of which was under lockdown - he's accepted £30k worth of tickets to things. £30k! That's more than most of us spend in a lifetime. At first, I thought it just a marginally amusing ha-ha-he's-just-as-bad-what-a-hypocrite story of a few gifts here and there. But the scale of it is truly astonishing. Not least because of his reputation.
As I say, he only appears to have strayed briefly and accidentally outside the letter of the rules. But he has taken an absolute wrecking ball to the spirit of them.
The location of the moral high ground is never a particularly good guide to the rights and wrongs of an issue, so I'm not getting all pious. Iam quite surprised though.
(Favourite bit of that open democracy link was the bits about the events other party leaders had accepted tickets for, drily noting that Gordon Brown didn't accept any sort of hospitality at all.)
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
Quite a lot of CGT gain just reflects inflation. So you're being taxed on not losing money, which seems a bit harsh whatever way you look at it.
Yes. As I recall Brown reduced the CGT rate at the same time as removing indexation relief, which one presumes was intended as a simplification of the tax regime.
However, offering a lower rate of tax for CGT as a result then invited people to create vehicles for paying people an income via a capital gain, so as to pay a lower rate of tax. And so presumably there is a lot of complication in the tax code to try to control this. Unsuccessful complication. And so we have unhappiness that some people can effectively draw an income via capital gains at a lower tax rate and pressure to equalise the tax rates.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
Blimey, 10 years. How time flies when you get older. My memories of that day are still vivid. Nothing political in my entire life has come close to being so significant and so anxious.
I think Salmond contrived the optimal circumstances for Yes. He had a Tory PM who was (inevitably) unpopular in Scotland. He had Better Together led by Alastair Darling who could not bring himself to say very much that was positive about a UK led by a Tory PM reliant on English seats. This made the Better Together campaign excessively negative with warnings about how bad things would be rather than proclaiming a successful union out of which Scotland has done extremely well. There was still a lot more oil in the North Sea and at that time, at least, there was no hesitation in extracting it.
Few of these positives are now available to the SNP but it does have to be recognised that Scotland feels a lot less a fully functioning part of the UK than it did in 2014. More and more of our governance is determined in Holyrood and the steps taken after the Referendum accentuated that. Even to me as a die hard Unionist so many of the stories about what is happening in Westminster seem of no obvious relevance to us.
The Union needs some attention and some love. Occasional, half hearted attempts to rebrand the UK government in Scotland didn't really cut it. If we end up in 2026 with a Labour led administration on both sides of the border I very much hope time and effort is spent finding things we can work together on constructively rather than fight about.
If unionists really want to reduce the proportion of Scots wanting independence, why not demonstrate some positive reasons for the union? 10 years of unrelenting negativity, from all sides, has been depressing and counterproductive.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I was attempting to use an easy to understand metaphor on a BETTING site, but my point seems to have gone utterly over your head, so let me explain again.
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
Oh, heavens to Betsy. I said I was picking at your example. I got your point. I also responded to your point. The part of my response that you skipped over is the comparison to other forms of income.
If I go earn some extra money, I pay 40% of it in income tax. If you’re rich and able to invest £250k (something most people in the country can’t even dream of) and you make money from that investment, should you pay no tax on that, should you pay the same as income tax, less, more? If you want to make your argument about CGT, I suggest you need to do it in the context of the tax rates on earned income.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
See, you make that sound skeazy (sic).
There’s no giving of money to wear those clothes.
He’s buying the clothes.
I rate the sort of couple who don't buy their own clothes lower than Alan Clark rated people who do buy their own furniture and Lord Hailsham rated those who buy their own castles. There's nothing exactly wrong about this but the eeeeuw reading is off the scale.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
You are deliberately making that sound sleazy when it is not.
There’s a possibility I could have a gig in the future that requires that both me and my wife to attend lots of balls, posh dinners etc. Would I accept her being given clothes/an allowance to attend these official events? Yes, I think I would.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
This argument seems to be your lot were worse but then Starmer stood on honesty and integrity and receiving £100,000 for goodies and freebies is simply inappropriate and certainly is not acceptable to the public according to the polls
Starmer isn't "my lot" any more than I would hold you personally responsible for the theft of £15 billion from the state by people associated with the Conservative Party.
I am just pointing out that people buying stuff for the Leader of the Opposition isn't remotely in the same league as theft of £15 billion facilitated by the previous government.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
I am currently single. If any of you reading this would like to give my cat money to play with special catnip mice, I would be happy with that. I’ll even take photos and send them to you.
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
I'm pretty. fastidious about what I would accept or if I would let non friends buy me lunch or dinner and I would never accept a prop or any wardrobe from a shoot but the number of times I've been invited into someone's box at a football match (more ofter than not Man U) runs into dozens. If someone wants my company and they own the box and I fancy the game i can't see it in any way as transactional.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
You are deliberately making that sound sleazy when it is not.
There’s a possibility I could have a gig in the future that requires that both me and my wife to attend lots of balls, posh dinners etc. Would I accept her being given clothes/an allowance to attend these official events? Yes, I think I would.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I was attempting to use an easy to understand metaphor on a BETTING site, but my point seems to have gone utterly over your head, so let me explain again.
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
Oh, heavens to Betsy. I said I was picking at your example. I got your point. I also responded to your point. The part of my response that you skipped over is the comparison to other forms of income.
If I go earn some extra money, I pay 40% of it in income tax. If you’re rich and able to invest £250k (something most people in the country can’t even dream of) and you make money from that investment, should you pay no tax on that, should you pay the same as income tax, less, more? If you want to make your argument about CGT, I suggest you need to do it in the context of the tax rates on earned income.
Or, as I explained in my previous post, capital is globally mobile, and those with 250k (or much more) to invest, will simply up sticks and leave the UK.
There is a reason why tax on profit from investment (i.e. risk) is generally taxed much lower than income in every country across the world. You want people to risk their capital.
Having 250k to invest also means you have 250k to lose. At 45%, people will risk their capital less (thus harming the economy) or take their money out of the economy entirely (causing even more harm).
To repeat myself, again, it would be an unalloyed act of economic madness from Labour to do it. Not least because HMRC have already estimated it to be significantly net negative to the treasury. So if they do go down that path, it's political posturing of the very worst kind, the kind that actively harms the economy, all in the name of 'bashing the rich' (who will bugger off, anyway).
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
Fair enough if its your hobby and you can afford it , sounds obsessive to me , the fact that Starmer got others to pay for the hobby though is not right. Also does he really want other people paying for his wife's nice clothes?
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
Same as the Junior Doctors and all the others this govt just capitulated to without getting any concessions.
And leaving Granny to shiver in the cold
Granny’s had big increases in her pension over the last few years, granny should stop moaning.
This highlights the problem that the idea grannies are well served with the pension increases is far away from the real lives of pensioners just above the thresaehold and is incentive to their plight
Yes 25% of pensioners do not need the WFA but many millions more do as we will see this winter
I’m not convinced that 75% of pensioners need WFA.
Im not convinced 100% of the PMs wives need a £19,000 dress allowance.
The £19k wasn’t public money, so what’s that got to do with WFA?
A key point which many PB Tories can't seem to grasp.
Funny old world.
Do we know for sure that Starmer wasn’t wanting to keep the WFA and, after the donor gave the money he also told Starmer that he wants to see WFA cut?
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
I mean, Sunak could have been told to cut HS2 by the person who gave him free seats to watch Soton at St Mary's.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
Well he's not going to lose office over it - or even my vote (I didn't vote Labour). But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
I worked it last night, I spent close to £40k following Liverpool in 2019/20 season, slightly less in 2021/22.
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
I didn't spend anything following Forest.
I got paid to watch them win the First Division and The European Cup.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Answer: Starmer pays for his ticket; Arsenal very kindly provide whatever is needed seat/position wise for security so saving the tax payer. Starmer's honour secured, Arsenal get good publicity. Another 1-0 home win for the Arsenal.
It's almost certainly cheaper and easier for Arsenal just to give him a free hospitality pass for the matches, it a suite that is setup to accommodate his security detail, without the club's staff jumping through ludicrous logistical hoops every home game.
That's all fine of course. The point being that Starmer needs to pay for his ticket - that element of the hospitality pass. Not the whole palaver, which is a matter for the tax payer and Arsenal. of course this is a tedious detail. You would have thought that after Boris, Blair, Beergate and so on, PMs would know that every tedious detail matters, and that we want PMs who are exemplary in their public facing lives WRT integrity and ordinary honest and honourable conduct.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists. Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants. Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Hezbollah’s purpose is not to blow people to pieces, although they do often blow people to pieces. They are an active political party in Lebanon who have been involved in several coalition governments. They are also a large, Iranian-backed militia force opposed to Israel. It’s complicated.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
This argument seems to be your lot were worse but then Starmer stood on honesty and integrity and receiving £100,000 for goodies and freebies is simply inappropriate and certainly is not acceptable to the public according to the polls
Starmer isn't "my lot" any more than I would hold you personally responsible for the theft of £15 billion from the state by people associated with the Conservative Party.
I am just pointing out that people buying stuff for the Leader of the Opposition isn't remotely in the same league as theft of £15 billion facilitated by the previous government.
I agree with that but the problem here is Starmer was supposed to be above all of this and it now turns out he has benefitted even more than Johnson from freebies
There is no doubt it has cut through and it is not doing Starmer any favours with the public
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
Mandy Rice Davies springs to mind
As Anabobz says, technically SKS has done little wrong, that one failure to declare that has come out so far aside. But still. He's accepted more in gifts than any other party leader of recent times (including, it would appear, almost incredibly, Boris Johnson and Tony Blair - neither reputed to be shy of living the high life at someone else's expense.) In the four years or so he's been leader - one of which was under lockdown - he's accepted £30k worth of tickets to things. £30k! That's more than most of us spend in a lifetime. At first, I thought it just a marginally amusing ha-ha-he's-just-as-bad-what-a-hypocrite story of a few gifts here and there. But the scale of it is truly astonishing. Not least because of his reputation.
As I say, he only appears to have strayed briefly and accidentally outside the letter of the rules. But he has taken an absolute wrecking ball to the spirit of them.
The location of the moral high ground is never a particularly good guide to the rights and wrongs of an issue, so I'm not getting all pious. Iam quite surprised though.
(Favourite bit of that open democracy link was the bits about the events other party leaders had accepted tickets for, drily noting that Gordon Brown didn't accept any sort of hospitality at all.)
A key point though is rules are different for ministers compared with people not in government, which is what we are talking about here with Starmer. Disclosure rules were much less transparent at the time Tony Blair was LOTO. Boris Johnson picked up journalist gigs worth several hundred thousands a year, indirectly funded by the Russian state incidentally.
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
That gets rather annoying when HMRC's internal guidebook doesn't match the externally available one...
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Answer: Starmer pays for his ticket; Arsenal very kindly provide whatever is needed seat/position wise for security so saving the tax payer. Starmer's honour secured, Arsenal get good publicity. Another 1-0 home win for the Arsenal.
It's almost certainly cheaper and easier for Arsenal just to give him a free hospitality pass for the matches, it a suite that is setup to accommodate his security detail, without the club's staff jumping through ludicrous logistical hoops every home game.
That's all fine of course. The point being that Starmer needs to pay for his ticket - that element of the hospitality pass. Not the whole palaver, which is a matter for the tax payer and Arsenal. of course this is a tedious detail. You would have thought that after Boris, Blair, Beergate and so on, PMs would know that every tedious detail matters, and that we want PMs who are exemplary in their public facing lives WRT integrity and ordinary honest and honourable conduct.
Slalom's secret CPS press conference rulebook is my favourite twist amongst the many contortions made in his defence
Then you are incredibly dense, as I told WilliamGlenn the guide on to speaking to the media predates Starmer by decades and I’m not defending him, I’ve said Caesar’s wife and all that jazz.
The secret guide that your friend told you about?
Why isn't it public?
The guide is nothing to do with freebies, it was to do with why one PBer doesn’t like Starmer.
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
That gets rather annoying when HMRC's internal guidebook doesn't match the externally available one...
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
I would guess they have assets/investments? I think @kyf_100 has been complaining about similar things. The CGT rates are what - 20% max after allowances for a higher rate tax payer?. In other european countries they are closer to 40%. If you have a gain of say £100k it is a significant difference.
I could bore you about CGT ad infinitum, suffice to say
1. It's a disincentive to investment. From a betting perspective, if you flip a coin for £10, you gain £10 if you win and lose your £10 if you make the wrong call. Add in CGT at 20% and it's a gain of £8 vs a loss of £10, so the risk/reward is skewed. Now consider CGT at 45%. Heads I win £5.50, tails I lose £10. This has real world effects on investment - I've already declined a six figure investment in a promising startup in anticipation of a 45% rate, because the risk/reward is too unbalanced.
2. Around 50% of disposals are for £5m or more, meaning most will be clobbered by a 45% rate. Let's say you have a gain of £2m. You might not want to take the kids out of school or quit your day job to avoid the current £400k tax bill. But at 45% you could fly to Dubai, dispose of the asset, and pay 0%. Meaning you could spend 200k a year for the next 5 years without working and still be up on paying tax in the UK.
3. The rich already pay into the Uk coffers disproportionately, it's oft cited that the top 1% of taxpayers account for ~27% of all treasury income. They get little for it, and we live in a globalised market for talent now. I've worked abroad twice in my lifetime and would do so again. Add in the fact that many working in London and our top industries were born elsewhere, have an EU passport, or are married to a non UK citizen and the whole 'stay and pay your taxes in 'your' country' argument gets very thin very quickly.
A 45% CGT rate would be one of the highest in the entire world, and would lead to a dramatic reduction in investment as demonstrated by point (1), while encouraging the globally mobile rich to leave due to points (2) and (3), disproportionately affecting the treasury's coffers. HMRC themselves have said that raising the current CGT rates more than 5% (so from 20% to 25% or 24% to 29% for property) would be net negative to the exchequer.
It's pure unalloyed madness from an economic perspective, and if Labour do it, it will be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever witnessed. Even if you don't pay CGT yourself, the knock on effect in terms of reduced jobs in the economy, particularly in start ups and tech, will lead to a brain drain that the UK would take many, many years to recover from.
If you flip a coin for £10, how has the UK economy benefitted? Has productivity increased? No. You got lucky. If I earn £10 through hard work, I have to pay tax on my income. You, fecklessly gambling, don’t. Is that fair?
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
I was attempting to use an easy to understand metaphor on a BETTING site, but my point seems to have gone utterly over your head, so let me explain again.
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
Oh, heavens to Betsy. I said I was picking at your example. I got your point. I also responded to your point. The part of my response that you skipped over is the comparison to other forms of income.
If I go earn some extra money, I pay 40% of it in income tax. If you’re rich and able to invest £250k (something most people in the country can’t even dream of) and you make money from that investment, should you pay no tax on that, should you pay the same as income tax, less, more? If you want to make your argument about CGT, I suggest you need to do it in the context of the tax rates on earned income.
Or, as I explained in my previous post, capital is globally mobile, and those with 250k (or much more) to invest, will simply up sticks and leave the UK.
There is a reason why tax on profit from investment (i.e. risk) is generally taxed much lower than income in every country across the world. You want people to risk their capital.
Having 250k to invest also means you have 250k to lose. At 45%, people will risk their capital less (thus harming the economy) or take their money out of the economy entirely (causing even more harm).
To repeat myself, again, it would be an unalloyed act of economic madness from Labour to do it. Not least because HMRC have already estimated it to be significantly net negative to the treasury. So if they do go down that path, it's political posturing of the very worst kind, the kind that actively harms the economy, all in the name of 'bashing the rich' (who will bugger off, anyway).
Thank you for a more considered reply.
Three points: (1) the idea that people "will simply up sticks and leave the UK" is repeated whenever Labour is in power. The risk is greatly exaggerated.
(2) As I said, the tax system should encourage people to invest in businesses. Plenty of capital gains, however, is not investment. How do we best distinguish which is which?
(3) Yours is another in a recent glut of posts that claim it would be "madness" for Labour to do something that they haven't announced they're going to do.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
So if a man gave your partner money to wear special clothes that he wanted your partner to wear, you'd be happy with that?
You are deliberately making that sound sleazy when it is not.
There’s a possibility I could have a gig in the future that requires that both me and my wife to attend lots of balls, posh dinners etc. Would I accept her being given clothes/an allowance to attend these official events? Yes, I think I would.
As a general point of order, I am sure many of us over the years have attended work events (perhaps also bringing partners) that have required us to “dress up” and wouldn’t get an allowance to do so.
I do think the outrage when it is targeted at Starmer in particular is a little confected. But I do think there’s a wider question about how the political class operates with things like this.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists. Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants. Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
Increase the PM and mps pay and outlaw gifts
There is certainly an argument that the PM should be paid a million a year. Or something like that. But I would counter that with much stricter training and promotion systems.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Answer: Starmer pays for his ticket; Arsenal very kindly provide whatever is needed seat/position wise for security so saving the tax payer. Starmer's honour secured, Arsenal get good publicity. Another 1-0 home win for the Arsenal.
It's almost certainly cheaper and easier for Arsenal just to give him a free hospitality pass for the matches, it a suite that is setup to accommodate his security detail, without the club's staff jumping through ludicrous logistical hoops every home game.
That's all fine of course. The point being that Starmer needs to pay for his ticket - that element of the hospitality pass. Not the whole palaver, which is a matter for the tax payer and Arsenal. of course this is a tedious detail. You would have thought that after Boris, Blair, Beergate and so on, PMs would know that every tedious detail matters, and that we want PMs who are exemplary in their public facing lives WRT integrity and ordinary honest and honourable conduct.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
No army can 100% know that there won't be collateral damage to its actions, only mitigate the risk, especially when it's fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself in the civilian population. The question under international law is, can the risk (sometimes high to certain) be justified as proportional to the aims? If an army or terror group are using civilians as cover for attacks, then that is very much their war crime - not the response.
As Hezbollah has been endlessly firing rockets at Israel, themselves killing innocent people, and threatening worse, there's clearly an argument that it is proportionate - especially when you consider that the alternative means of inflicting this much damage on Hezbollah would likely be far more devastating to civilians.
At times it seems lots of people are determined to condemn Israel for existing and fighting back against enemies who wish to destroy it - and have little concern about the blood spilt doing so among their own people - whatever they do.
Find a way to specifically target Hezbollah members - outrage. Conduct missile strikes to hit Hezbollah - also outrage. Ground invasion - also outrage. Just what is it Israel is supposed to do? Sit back and accept rockets raining down on its northern cities and towns permanently?
For example we practically levelled Mosul to destroy ISIS, killing thousands of civilians - but there were few complaints as it was generally understood that the threat of ISIS remaining in Iraq and potentially recovering to carry out its atrocities was so great that it had to be done, despite the cost in civilian life.
You'd add that if a Hezbollah fighter has his baby in his arms and they are harmed, that's very much on him for being a Hezbollah fighter. You don't get to be a terrorist target innocent people with your attacks, go back to your family and cry because targeting you might put your own family at risk. You chose to be a terrorist. Those are the consequences.
Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah are horrible shits, but imagine the pager is on a table in a cafe, and maims a kid that is a total stranger to the Hezbollah fella. The kids parents are not terrorists. Israel had no definite way of knowing that it would only kill and maim wrong 'uns or their dependants. Would you be happy with the UK using such tactics?
If you don't want any of your loved ones to be blown to pieces then don't be a part of an organisation whose mission is to blow people to pieces.
Such ignorance of what Hezbollah are. They are part of the fabric of Lebanese society. They run schools and social welfare. They have MP's and Ministers in the Lebanese Parliament. They are more equivalent to Snin Fein than anything else
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Well being PM means some sacrifices and its hardly essential that he needs to carry on watching Arsenal is it? What is it with this football obsession?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
To give an example of one sport I know, the Sports Minister doesn’t have to declare a ticket to the British Grand Prix, because they are there in an official capacity and will present a trophy to the winner at the podium ceremony after the race.
Some other random minister or MP, who accepts a £10k Paddock Club ticket for the weekend, either from F1 or another company, but isn’t involved in an official capacity at the event itself, has to declare the hospitality.
The PM attending sporting events and concerts at Wembley, as guest of the FA, needs to be declared unless he’s actually involved in proceedings at the event, and not just there to enjoy themselves.
Am I the only one on PB that thinks this is all confected outrage, the tickets and the frocks?
Sir Keir gets free tickets for Arsenal from Arsenal FC. These are not at the taxpayers' expense. So what? Ditto Taylor Swift gigs.
Lady Vic gets free frocks (which she wears in her public capacity as first lady) from a longstanding Labour donor who would otherwise sink that money into Labour's general coffers. These frocks are not at the taxpayers' expense. Again, so what?
It is true that Sir Keir declared the latter late, but he did declare them and – and this is a key point that seems to have been lost – did so before any media interest, once he realised that they should have been declared.
It's just a more glamorous version of Donkeygate. A whole load of wup.
It is indefensible for Statmer to receive £100,000 from a fellow millionaire to dress him and his wife and lots of other freebies but as I said previously the great British public reject his largesse by 62% to 13% so you are one of the 13%
So what? I seek not to hold the common view, but the right one.
The only rule he 'broke' was declaring Lady Vic's frocks late – but rectified this once he realised the error.
The fact that Big G, the bloke on the internet, got out of bed the wrong side one morning and started clutching his pearls is irrelevant.
Seems a bit pervy to let another man dress your wife
Moronic post. She's dressing herself you twit. Alli provided the funding for her wardrobe.
I think what Alan is saying is that a real alpha man dresses his own wife - so Keir is being a bit of a beta cuck here.
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
Perhaps she should dress herself? But the sentiment expressed by Lammy that she has to dress up for the good of the country seems to reduce her to chatteldom.
Well there is 'wardrobe pressure' on her now that there wouldn't have been before. As for the funding of it I don't think it should come from a rich donor. The less of that sort of thing the better imo.
The question, for sensible people, is how to change things.
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal - The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers. - For security, they will have advised using a box. - A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
Arsenal giving him a box on account of the fact he was a loyal season ticket holder before he became PM?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
He is an Arsenal season ticket holder for years.
The issue is he cannot use his normal seat because of the plethora of armed coppers that travel with him.
Answer: Starmer pays for his ticket; Arsenal very kindly provide whatever is needed seat/position wise for security so saving the tax payer. Starmer's honour secured, Arsenal get good publicity. Another 1-0 home win for the Arsenal.
It's almost certainly cheaper and easier for Arsenal just to give him a free hospitality pass for the matches, it a suite that is setup to accommodate his security detail, without the club's staff jumping through ludicrous logistical hoops every home game.
That's all fine of course. The point being that Starmer needs to pay for his ticket - that element of the hospitality pass. Not the whole palaver, which is a matter for the tax payer and Arsenal. of course this is a tedious detail. You would have thought that after Boris, Blair, Beergate and so on, PMs would know that every tedious detail matters, and that we want PMs who are exemplary in their public facing lives WRT integrity and ordinary honest and honourable conduct.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
Yeah you're right. But maybe one of those things where public perception changes and its good to be ahead of the curve?
I am not worried about Starmer being invited to a Taylor Swift concert. I don't think this will bias how he governs the country. I am more worried by things like the fast-track COVID contract fraud.
Starmer has accepted £100,000 for clothes, glasses, football and concert tickets from a fellow millionaire whilst claiming he will be different and rejects sleaze and cronyism
It is unacceptable and hypocritical of him, and frankly where is his pride as so much more was expected of him and now the great British public reject his freebies by 62% to 13%
I am also very surprised as an Arsenal supporters he hasn't been a season ticket holder for years - after all I am not a millionaire but I had a Manchester United season ticket for decades
This argument seems to be your lot were worse but then Starmer stood on honesty and integrity and receiving £100,000 for goodies and freebies is simply inappropriate and certainly is not acceptable to the public according to the polls
Starmer isn't "my lot" any more than I would hold you personally responsible for the theft of £15 billion from the state by people associated with the Conservative Party.
I am just pointing out that people buying stuff for the Leader of the Opposition isn't remotely in the same league as theft of £15 billion facilitated by the previous government.
I agree with that but the problem here is Starmer was supposed to be above all of this and it now turns out he has benefitted even more than Johnson from freebies
There is no doubt it has cut through and it is not doing Starmer any favours with the public
I don't think he's benefitted more than Johnson. Yet.
Comments
So, the question is, do pensioners (without disabilities and not in a caring role, with no additional housing costs) who get £12k a year need WFP?
Which part of my post is wrong?
Expensive clothing etc just looks bad, there’s much better ways of doing this as suggested above - get UK designers to dress Lady Starmer, and lend her the clothes in exchange for the publicity.
Baxters Lobster Bisque is decent.
Now it’s clearly very unlikely but the fact is that if the PM is receiving freebies then he is open to charges of undue influence in return for freebies. If his response is that the value isn’t enough to risk swaying his mind then it’s not enough to need others to pay it.
And the motive/consequences here. Is it defensive or to escalate towards a regional war? Whose interests are being furthered, Israel's or Netanyahu's? Hezbollah have been humiliated, yes, but haven't the US also been? How long can an 'all funding no leverage' situation go on for?
Little to celebrate here, as far as I can see, other than the technical prowess of the operation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/09/tory-covid-contracts-worth-15bn-had-corruption-red-flags-study-finds
P.S. you're writing "you are simply wrong" doesn't make me so. Engage with my points: what part of my OP was wrong? Go ahead...
Fwiw I find the expression that a man should 'dress his own wife' to be a piece of old school patriarchal yuck.
It's a 'woman as possession' sentiment.
So, I don’t think your coin flip is the best example! Presumably you think most CGT gains involve thoughtful investment, not random chance. I would guess it’s a mix of both. We need investment and should encourage investment, but we shouldn’t go easy on people who’ve made money through luck while expecting those in work to pay. I don’t know what the solution is there, but I found your post one-sided.
That could be the case.
But it's not very likely, is it?
Are we saying that no MPs should ever accept gifts, hospitality under any circumstances? And, if so, would you extend this rule to all other jobs and professions where corruption of some kind could hypothetically be an issue?
The whole point of declaring the gifts is so it's transparent to the public.
She’s not an employee or in a public role, but will incur additional costs when acting in her capacity as the PMs wife. It’s reasonable that the state should pay
I think Salmond contrived the optimal circumstances for Yes. He had a Tory PM who was (inevitably) unpopular in Scotland. He had Better Together led by Alastair Darling who could not bring himself to say very much that was positive about a UK led by a Tory PM reliant on English seats. This made the Better Together campaign excessively negative with warnings about how bad things would be rather than proclaiming a successful union out of which Scotland has done extremely well. There was still a lot more oil in the North Sea and at that time, at least, there was no hesitation in extracting it.
Few of these positives are now available to the SNP but it does have to be recognised that Scotland feels a lot less a fully functioning part of the UK than it did in 2014. More and more of our governance is determined in Holyrood and the steps taken after the Referendum accentuated that. Even to me as a die hard Unionist so many of the stories about what is happening in Westminster seem of no obvious relevance to us.
The Union needs some attention and some love. Occasional, half hearted attempts to rebrand the UK government in Scotland didn't really cut it. If we end up in 2026 with a Labour led administration on both sides of the border I very much hope time and effort is spent finding things we can work together on constructively rather than fight about.
Scotland VI
Con 14%
Lab 25%
Lib Dem 8%
SNP 32%
Reform 11%
Green 7%
Other 2%
Scotland Indy ref VI
Yes 45%
No 47%
Don’t know 8%
That's the kind of slacker thinking that stopped the master in charge let us fire the Boyes .55 in the CCF armoury.
Vote Malmesbury for UnDictator - a Davy Crockett in the CCF armoury of every school.
"Threatening us with nuclear weapons, Mr Putin? My twelve year old has nuclear weapons."
Imagine a person comes to me, an investor, with a business plan they are seeking 250k investment in (assume I have maxed out entrepreneur's relief etc already, or my share of the investment would be less than 5% so non qualifying).
Based on their business plan, I estimate the risk of their business folding in the next 5 years to be 40%, with an estimated reward of 250k. Under the current taxation system I'd have a 40% chance of losing all the money invested for an estimated 200k post tax profit. So it would be EV neutral. Under 45% tax, I'd still a 40% chance of losing all my money, but would only be looking at a potential reward of £137,500. So I go, hmm. The risks outweigh the rewards here, so I'll pass.
There. I have just told you the exact same story, only as a business investment decision rather than a 'coin toss' which I thought was an ELI5 way of explaining risk, rather than a LITERAL coin toss. Sighs and shakes head.
So you're being taxed on not losing money, which seems a bit harsh whatever way you look at it.
And I see iHT changes more around thresholds not rates, unless a lower rate is applied more broadly. That would be sensible, but I don't see it as am early change.
Then Cameron might must have been so complacent over the Brexit vote.
Mind you there's two sides to all arguments. I strongly feel that for planes given to primary schools the weapons should be converted to single shot.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1836195157194022936?s=19
But it has slightly lowered my opinion of him.
Is a few Arsenal games really worth that ... ?
There’s no giving of money to wear those clothes.
He’s buying the clothes.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/18/keir-starmer-100000-in-tickets-and-gifts-more-than-any-other-recent-party-leader
As I say, he only appears to have strayed briefly and accidentally outside the letter of the rules. But he has taken an absolute wrecking ball to the spirit of them.
The location of the moral high ground is never a particularly good guide to the rights and wrongs of an issue, so I'm not getting all pious. Iam quite surprised though.
(Favourite bit of that open democracy link was the bits about the events other party leaders had accepted tickets for, drily noting that Gordon Brown didn't accept any sort of hospitality at all.)
However, offering a lower rate of tax for CGT as a result then invited people to create vehicles for paying people an income via a capital gain, so as to pay a lower rate of tax. And so presumably there is a lot of complication in the tax code to try to control this. Unsuccessful complication. And so we have unhappiness that some people can effectively draw an income via capital gains at a lower tax rate and pressure to equalise the tax rates.
So, will indexation relief be reintroduced?
There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t spend to follow my team.
You can change your job, your nationality, your name, heck you can even change your gender, but you can never change the club you love and follow.
If I go earn some extra money, I pay 40% of it in income tax. If you’re rich and able to invest £250k (something most people in the country can’t even dream of) and you make money from that investment, should you pay no tax on that, should you pay the same as income tax, less, more? If you want to make your argument about CGT, I suggest you need to do it in the context of the tax rates on earned income.
There’s a possibility I could have a gig in the future that requires that both me and my wife to attend lots of balls, posh dinners etc. Would I accept her being given clothes/an allowance to attend these official events? Yes, I think I would.
Try MREs for a bit of a change? They come with all kinds of mini-snacks and useful bits and pieces.
Get a Spanish one and they can have a portion of tinned octopods.
I am just pointing out that people buying stuff for the Leader of the Opposition isn't remotely in the same league as theft of £15 billion facilitated by the previous government.
Why isn't it public?
This would be better than lugging tins around - less weight and easier to pack.
There is a reason why tax on profit from investment (i.e. risk) is generally taxed much lower than income in every country across the world. You want people to risk their capital.
Having 250k to invest also means you have 250k to lose. At 45%, people will risk their capital less (thus harming the economy) or take their money out of the economy entirely (causing even more harm).
To repeat myself, again, it would be an unalloyed act of economic madness from Labour to do it. Not least because HMRC have already estimated it to be significantly net negative to the treasury. So if they do go down that path, it's political posturing of the very worst kind, the kind that actively harms the economy, all in the name of 'bashing the rich' (who will bugger off, anyway).
It’s an internal guide, not everything has to be public.
I got paid to watch them win the First Division and The European Cup.
A season ticket (which he used to own before becoming PM) can be bought for £1,200 per season. https://www.arsenal.com/news/general-admission-season-ticket-prices-2024-25
There is no doubt it has cut through and it is not doing Starmer any favours with the public
I don't think that people giving gifts to the PM that amount to 15%+ of his salary is suitable in the modern world. So what is the alternative?
EDIT:
The facts go like this
- Starmer used to go to lots of Arsenal games. Because he likes watching Arsenal
- The police will have told him that he can't sit in the stands. And that if he ignores their advice, he is risking the safety of his close protection officers.
- For security, they will have advised using a box.
- A box at Arsenal costs 5 figures.
What meets the case?
https://www.youtube.com/live/jgEkw7q-TgE?si=mcN-UkW5BAjX4I2M
Also South Africa are currently 36/7 after ten overs!
Between them and AMEX my patience is rather worn.
Three points: (1) the idea that people "will simply up sticks and leave the UK" is repeated whenever Labour is in power. The risk is greatly exaggerated.
(2) As I said, the tax system should encourage people to invest in businesses. Plenty of capital gains, however, is not investment. How do we best distinguish which is which?
(3) Yours is another in a recent glut of posts that claim it would be "madness" for Labour to do something that they haven't announced they're going to do.
I do think the outrage when it is targeted at Starmer in particular is a little confected. But I do think there’s a wider question about how the political class operates with things like this.
Ah, that is exactly what happened!
Posters like iSam could hold their own and make salient points