Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
That's true, but the number of people with the earnings in and around £9,100 is very low. It represents about 14 hours a week on the minimum wage, or 10 on median wages, and those on minimum wage can't see their wage suppressed*. Overall, the change is still progressive because higher income households are more likely to be on > NMW wages than other groups.
*Though this might be passed on as lower rates of employment/hours worked rather than wages.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
I really have no idea, and I don't care. They are no longer in government you dope. We are talking about the current CoE who has been dishonest. A member of a party that quite correctly called out Johnson's lying and made much political capital from it. She should resign, but she clearly has no integrity so she will not. If Starmer does not sack her he condones dishonesty.
It's just so funny when a supporter of one party accuses a politician from another party of lying, and when it's pointed out what liars the politicians of his own party are, responds by saying "I really have no idea, and I don't care".
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
If only there were a political party not mostly populated by serial liars, we'd be in a much better state.
I am not sure that is fair. There are many politicians of all stripes who are fundamentally honest. I think the vast majority of them would think that blatantly lying on a CV was not a sensible thing to do.
As an employer I consider it fraud, which is what it is. Any employee of any company I was involved with who did such a thing would receive a full disciplinary procedure for what Reeves has done.
As it happens, I know someone who worked with Reeves, He described what she was doing at the time as 'mortgage planning, interest rates, housing market sizing, volumes, spreads etc'. To describe that as the work of an 'economist' seems reasonable to me. It's not a protected word.
That was not the only infringement. If it were it would simply be a modest embellishment, which while possibly a little dishonest would not fall into the fraudulent category
I don't subscribe to the telegraph. What exactly is the lie she has told?
There are many sources. Look it up.
Honestly all I've found thats not behind a paywall is she said she worked for a decade at BoE in an interview [not 6 years] and that her roles at HBOS was as an economist which she later amended to retail banking. Is that it?
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I waIs thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
Personlly. I'd like to go back to the time when the NHS was crap, as it is now, but also cheap. which it no longer is
Then they could actually cut our taxes, and tell the nurses and doctors to go jump
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
You can easily note that down on your CV employed x to x* -> *"includes year on leave studying for a masters", which will tie up to education section including the masters qualification.
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
I have my 6 months of furlough noted in my CV from my previous job, it's not very difficult to do and I don't think anyone cares really. I'd prefer a potential candidate to be honest and up front about gaps in their CV than to find out later on they've got less experience than advertised.
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
You can easily note that down on your CV employed x to x* -> *"includes year on leave studying for a masters", which will tie up to education section including the masters qualification.
Right but online portals I've found often aren't flexible like that...
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I waIs thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
Personlly. I'd like to go back to the time when the NHS was crap, as it is now, but also cheap. which it no longer is
Then they could actually cut our taxes, and tell the nurses and doctors to go jump
It's alright the UK has taken the necessary first step to reduce waiting lists, which should improve outcomes, and may eventually result in cost reductions because treating people early is cheaper than treating them when their condition has worsened and they've developed secondary health issues.
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
You can easily note that down on your CV employed x to x* -> *"includes year on leave studying for a masters", which will tie up to education section including the masters qualification.
Right but online portals I've found often aren't flexible like that...
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
I really have no idea, and I don't care. They are no longer in government you dope. We are talking about the current CoE who has been dishonest. A member of a party that quite correctly called out Johnson's lying and made much political capital from it. She should resign, but she clearly has no integrity so she will not. If Starmer does not sack her he condones dishonesty.
Has she lied *as Chancellor*? Because when Johnson was (eventually) booted out, it was for lying as PM - as well as supporting other colleagues whose own misconduct was insupportable, as well as a whole host of other examples of bad behaviour, political misjudgements and embarrassments.
Netanhayu has had more than enough benefit of the doubt. He has a right to lead his government in war. He does not have the right to implement policies which are war crimes. And forced starvation, ethnic cleansing and the targeting of civilians are war crimes. Consequences follow.
FWIW, I subscribe to a (legally dodgy) principle of necessary proportionality when it comes to actions beyond the law. In other words, if your enemy breaks international law and gains an advantage from doing so, the country acted against in such manner must be able to make good that disadvantage. You do not lose a war for the sake of good form when your enemy rejects the principles you are binding yourself to, to begin with. But that is very much not the situation in Gaza.
Time will tell if Starmer has called this right but he's aligning himself with some strange bedfellows and at some point they will turn on his government.
He's also aligning himself with the ICC, which is the relevant factor.
I note the ICC don't mention the word genocide, which will upset a lot of people who describe themselves as pro-Palestine.
Netanhayu has had more than enough benefit of the doubt. He has a right to lead his government in war. He does not have the right to implement policies which are war crimes. And forced starvation, ethnic cleansing and the targeting of civilians are war crimes. Consequences follow.
FWIW, I subscribe to a (legally dodgy) principle of necessary proportionality when it comes to actions beyond the law. In other words, if your enemy breaks international law and gains an advantage from doing so, the country acted against in such manner must be able to make good that disadvantage. You do not lose a war for the sake of good form when your enemy rejects the principles you are binding yourself to, to begin with. But that is very much not the situation in Gaza.
Time will tell if Starmer has called this right but he's aligning himself with some strange bedfellows and at some point they will turn on his government.
He's also aligning himself with the ICC, which is the relevant factor.
I note the ICC don't mention the word genocide, which will upset a lot of people who describe themselves as pro-Palestine.
Who are the 15% better off? The Cabinet didn't require THAT many new clothes....
Undertakers, that cut to the winter fuel allowance is going to help them.
And in their wake, the probate lawyers...
Always the bloody lawyers.
Bit unfair. One can do without the lawyers to a considerable extent, such that most of the money is actually spent on the undertakers but also the celebrant for the funeral, the hotel for the f. baked meats, the house and contents valuers, the estate agents, the house clearance/skip, and the odd specialist such as the videographer for the house sale. Not easy to do without those ...
I went to a funeral this morning.
The deceased had no relatives and the death was in unusual circumstances so the council had to arrange a burial. The celebrant was only there to say a few words at the graveside [much prefer this if I'm honest]. The deceased accidentally burnt their own house down a few months earlier so the house clearance will be easy. The videographer won't be required.
Unfortunately, nobody knows where the will is.
As far as anyone knows, it was all to go to charity, but the state doesn't have much incentive to look hard.
Thank-you for the account, and it is good that you were there.
One that needs changing is that Bona Vacantia (ie intestate) estates need to be handled the same everywhere.
At present those within the boundaries of the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster (ie supporting the Prince of Wales and the King) go to those bodies, rather than "the nation".
I'm a pragmatic Royalist, but that is not OK.
Here's a recent Mark Felton vid about how the estates of such people went to the these Duchies even for those killed in bombing raids in WW2.
I find economic issues in politics difficult because try as I might I simply don't understand them, so have no real clue what would work and what would not. The positive for governments is it means I rarely get massively angry about things.
The downside for them is I am unlikely to particularly reward them if things do go well, as I'll assume it was chance, not design.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
In practice politics would not treat lies on specific topics the same, and that's leaving aside that national poll ratings will be a significant factor in any reaction anyway.
Poor figures for Labour and it's only going to get worse. The Tories will be in the lead on the economy by the middle of next year and it's because the outgoing government handed over 1.2% growth in H1 and Labour has trashed it in record time while putting up taxes by an unnecessary amount.
Everyone is going to feel worse off and Labour will take the blame for it as desperate as they are to try and push it on the previous government, businesses or anyone except themselves.
These next few years are going to be painful for everyone and I think the Tories need policies that will cut spending and cut public sector employment by a substantial number. We will continue down the road to Argentina if the Tories do nothing, a tax and spend death spiral.
Healthcare and welfare is the ballgame. It’s easier for a Labour government to reform then so I was rather hoping they would. They won’t, will they?
My instinct is that we need to radically rethink primary care, and obviously we need a proper answer on social care.
Social care needs a mandatory insurance provision that averages around £300 per person per year over 50. Not anything that will break the bank and subsidies available for people on low or fixed incomes. That would generate around £6bn per year which would fully fund social care at a stroke for everyone and it gets older people paying for their own care for just £10-12k lifetime insurance costs. Sure not everyone is going to need to use it but once people have it they'll wonder how we ever lived without the concept because the insurance will just handle all costs from day one without the hassle of having so sell property and with the risk so widely distributed over ~20m people there's no need for huge risk premiums as there would be now for the few people who would voluntarily purchase insurance of this kind.
As for healthcare shoveling money at the problem isn't the answer. It's all going to get pissed up the wall and the NHS management will be back asking for another £20bn in two years. It is a money pit and junking the whole system seems like the only way out right now.
I find economic issues in politics difficult because try as I might I simply don't understand them, so have no real clue what would work and what would not. The positive for governments is it means I rarely get massively angry about things.
The downside for them is I am unlikely to particularly reward them if things do go well, as I'll assume it was chance, not design.
We are 1% of the worlds economy, a lot of which is driven by shocks from things like wars and disasters. Demographics is the most important driver of our economy, followed by technology. Within the overton window what governments do wont make as much difference as politicians, or their fans, claim. Outside that window they can do a lot of harm but probably not much good.
It is sensible to give them both less praise and criticism than most on this board or in the press do.
Edit - Yeah I should have phrased that better, Matt Gaetz withdraws his name to be the next Attorney General.
I really don't know how Trump gets himself in these positions. He's so successfully captured the support of the party that he has no shortage of absolutely loyal people to choose from who will be fully aligned with whatever he wants to do, so why go for the guy hated by his colleagues in Congress and, even if criminal charges had not been successfully pursued, is at best very sleazy?
It's not even that Trump would have an issue with sleaze, but there have to be Gaetz equivalents without the same negatives.
Labour have only been in power for 140 days but there’s a palpable sense of disappointment - not just on here but in organs like the FT which reflect, if not shape, global business opinion.
Reeves gave a great Mais Lecture at the beginning of this year, and there’s no shortage of what I might New Model Growthers floating around the Labour tent. As I’ve posted before, what is missing is an overall sense of strategy - a reason to believe.
Something has gone very wrong. I’m not sure Starmer has the imagination to course-correct.
Nothing's gone wrong. Labour increase tax and spend it on their clients - i.e. the public sector unions and the state-adjacent sector. 'Pro-growth' was only ever so much guff and wishful thinking. What's happening is happening by design. This is what Labour do. {and yes, the last lot also focused spend on their clients in the 65+ demographic. I'm not playing angels and devils.}
The Tories need to junk the mollycoddling of the oldies. End the triple-lock.
Let them vote Labour or Reform if they want, and see what happens.
Labour have only been in power for 140 days but there’s a palpable sense of disappointment - not just on here but in organs like the FT which reflect, if not shape, global business opinion.
Reeves gave a great Mais Lecture at the beginning of this year, and there’s no shortage of what I might New Model Growthers floating around the Labour tent. As I’ve posted before, what is missing is an overall sense of strategy - a reason to believe.
Something has gone very wrong. I’m not sure Starmer has the imagination to course-correct.
Nothing's gone wrong. Labour increase tax and spend it on their clients - i.e. the public sector unions and the state-adjacent sector. 'Pro-growth' was only ever so much guff and wishful thinking. What's happening is happening by design. This is what Labour do. {and yes, the last lot also focused spend on their clients in the 65+ demographic. I'm not playing angels and devils.}
The Tories need to junk the mollycoddling of the oldies. End the triple-lock.
Let them vote Labour or Reform if they want, and see what happens.
Labour have only been in power for 140 days but there’s a palpable sense of disappointment - not just on here but in organs like the FT which reflect, if not shape, global business opinion.
Reeves gave a great Mais Lecture at the beginning of this year, and there’s no shortage of what I might New Model Growthers floating around the Labour tent. As I’ve posted before, what is missing is an overall sense of strategy - a reason to believe.
Something has gone very wrong. I’m not sure Starmer has the imagination to course-correct.
Nothing's gone wrong. Labour increase tax and spend it on their clients - i.e. the public sector unions and the state-adjacent sector. 'Pro-growth' was only ever so much guff and wishful thinking. What's happening is happening by design. This is what Labour do. {and yes, the last lot also focused spend on their clients in the 65+ demographic. I'm not playing angels and devils.}
The Tories need to junk the mollycoddling of the oldies. End the triple-lock.
Let them vote Labour or Reform if they want, and see what happens.
Do you think there's much chance of the Tories ditching the triple lock? I suppose Badenoch is a wild card, but it's probably the electoral policy that delivered the last decade of govt to them... its hard for me to imagine them scrapping it.
I really don't know how Trump gets himself in these positions. He's so successfully captured the support of the party that he has no shortage of absolutely loyal people to choose from who will be fully aligned with whatever he wants to do, so why go for the guy hated by his colleagues in Congress and, even if criminal charges had not been successfully pursued, is at best very sleazy?
It's not even that Trump would have an issue with sleaze, but there have to be Gaetz equivalents without the same negatives.
The negatives are the point
If Trump wants to smash the system, he can't appoint people who respect the system
Labour have only been in power for 140 days but there’s a palpable sense of disappointment - not just on here but in organs like the FT which reflect, if not shape, global business opinion.
Reeves gave a great Mais Lecture at the beginning of this year, and there’s no shortage of what I might New Model Growthers floating around the Labour tent. As I’ve posted before, what is missing is an overall sense of strategy - a reason to believe.
Something has gone very wrong. I’m not sure Starmer has the imagination to course-correct.
Nothing's gone wrong. Labour increase tax and spend it on their clients - i.e. the public sector unions and the state-adjacent sector. 'Pro-growth' was only ever so much guff and wishful thinking. What's happening is happening by design. This is what Labour do. {and yes, the last lot also focused spend on their clients in the 65+ demographic. I'm not playing angels and devils.}
The Tories need to junk the mollycoddling of the oldies. End the triple-lock.
Let them vote Labour or Reform if they want, and see what happens.
Three triple lock needs to go to help make the state pension sustainable,for,future generations
@kaitlancollins Trump does not have a new name in mind for attorney general and now returns to the search. He had struggled to find a candidate he liked initially, which is what led him to Gaetz. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Sullivan & Cromwell attorney Robert Giuffra had been two names he was looking at last week. Trump wasn't sold on either. He has been mainly focused on Treasury and the FBI this week.
Labour have only been in power for 140 days but there’s a palpable sense of disappointment - not just on here but in organs like the FT which reflect, if not shape, global business opinion.
Reeves gave a great Mais Lecture at the beginning of this year, and there’s no shortage of what I might New Model Growthers floating around the Labour tent. As I’ve posted before, what is missing is an overall sense of strategy - a reason to believe.
Something has gone very wrong. I’m not sure Starmer has the imagination to course-correct.
Nothing's gone wrong. Labour increase tax and spend it on their clients - i.e. the public sector unions and the state-adjacent sector. 'Pro-growth' was only ever so much guff and wishful thinking. What's happening is happening by design. This is what Labour do. {and yes, the last lot also focused spend on their clients in the 65+ demographic. I'm not playing angels and devils.}
The Tories need to junk the mollycoddling of the oldies. End the triple-lock.
Let them vote Labour or Reform if they want, and see what happens.
I would be delighted to vote conservative for the end of the triple lock
I really don't know how Trump gets himself in these positions. He's so successfully captured the support of the party that he has no shortage of absolutely loyal people to choose from who will be fully aligned with whatever he wants to do, so why go for the guy hated by his colleagues in Congress and, even if criminal charges had not been successfully pursued, is at best very sleazy?
It's not even that Trump would have an issue with sleaze, but there have to be Gaetz equivalents without the same negatives.
The negatives are the point
If Trump wants to smash the system, he can't appoint people who respect the system
But that was my point - there are definitely people who want to smash the system who don't have, lets call them question marks, around their sexual activity.
He is not short on options for people to smash the system, this isn't like if he is hunting around for a disruptive centi-billionaire who owns a media platform to engage with and has only one choice.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
I really have no idea, and I don't care. They are no longer in government you dope. We are talking about the current CoE who has been dishonest. A member of a party that quite correctly called out Johnson's lying and made much political capital from it. She should resign, but she clearly has no integrity so she will not. If Starmer does not sack her he condones dishonesty.
Has she lied *as Chancellor*? Because when Johnson was (eventually) booted out, it was for lying as PM - as well as supporting other colleagues whose own misconduct was insupportable, as well as a whole host of other examples of bad behaviour, political misjudgements and embarrassments.
Ultimately he was causing more problems for his colleagues at the time than they thought could be outweighed by his positives, and that was what did for him. There was some principle involved, but it was unlocked by self interest. Bluntly, is Reeves' issue causing her colleagues sufficient problems for them to give a shit?
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
I really have no idea, and I don't care. They are no longer in government you dope. We are talking about the current CoE who has been dishonest. A member of a party that quite correctly called out Johnson's lying and made much political capital from it. She should resign, but she clearly has no integrity so she will not. If Starmer does not sack her he condones dishonesty.
It's just so funny when a supporter of one party accuses a politician from another party of lying, and when it's pointed out what liars the politicians of his own party are, responds by saying "I really have no idea, and I don't care".
Politicians are at their most lame when they go onto TV to talk about a thing, and then just say they don't know about it or haven't seen it. It's just plain insulting to everyone's intelligence, it is particularly egregious in America, and even someone then quoting the issue to them won't get them to comment.
- The conflict has acquired elements of a global character. Russian military facilities in the Bryansk and Kursk regions were struck by Western missiles. On November 19, 6 ATACMS missiles and on November 21 Storm Shadow missiles struck facilities in Kursk and Bryansk regions.
- Russia struck Yuzhmash with a nuclear-free hypersonic ballistic missile. Ukraine was struck by the newest ballistic hypersonic missile "Oreshnik".
- The latest Russian missiles strike targets at a speed of 2-3 km per second, and the enemy's existing missile defense systems are unable to intercept them.
- The responsibility for the escalation lies with the U.S. The U.S. made a mistake by violating the agreement to eliminate long-range missiles. They have moved their missile systems to various regions around the world.
- In case of escalation, Russia will respond decisively and mirror the actions.
- Russia will offer civilians in Ukraine and citizens of other friendly countries the opportunity to leave potential strike zones in advance, Putin stated.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
From £140bn a year to £180bn before last budget.
Perhaps that was the real big lie of Brexit - that the NHS could be fixed with more money.
I wonder how many more decades of poor performance will see us continue to believe that.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
Powerful analysis. I had not realised how much extra 1% on income tax could raise. My hope is that Labour will get to the pro growth stuff he talks about, but if they feel unpopular/under attack they may duck those big decisions. They've already used the... "We inherited a crock of shit" card... can they do it again next year? At some point it stops working...
It already stopped working as soon as they started on their imagined £20 billion black hole. That was a totally unforced error which opened them up to ridicule.
- The conflict has acquired elements of a global character. Russian military facilities in the Bryansk and Kursk regions were struck by Western missiles. On November 19, 6 ATACMS missiles and on November 21 Storm Shadow missiles struck facilities in Kursk and Bryansk regions.
- Russia struck Yuzhmash with a nuclear-free hypersonic ballistic missile. Ukraine was struck by the newest ballistic hypersonic missile "Oreshnik".
- The latest Russian missiles strike targets at a speed of 2-3 km per second, and the enemy's existing missile defense systems are unable to intercept them.
- The responsibility for the escalation lies with the U.S. The U.S. made a mistake by violating the agreement to eliminate long-range missiles. They have moved their missile systems to various regions around the world.
- In case of escalation, Russia will respond decisively and mirror the actions.
- Russia will offer civilians in Ukraine and citizens of other friendly countries the opportunity to leave potential strike zones in advance, Putin stated.
I wonder when it acquired elements of a global character for the first time.
Edit - Yeah I should have phrased that better, Matt Gaetz withdraws his name to be the next Attorney General.
I really don't know how Trump gets himself in these positions. He's so successfully captured the support of the party that he has no shortage of absolutely loyal people to choose from who will be fully aligned with whatever he wants to do, so why go for the guy hated by his colleagues in Congress and, even if criminal charges had not been successfully pursued, is at best very sleazy?
It's not even that Trump would have an issue with sleaze, but there have to be Gaetz equivalents without the same negatives.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
That's true, but the number of people with the earnings in and around £9,100 is very low. It represents about 14 hours a week on the minimum wage, or 10 on median wages, and those on minimum wage can't see their wage suppressed*. Overall, the change is still progressive because higher income households are more likely to be on > NMW wages than other groups.
*Though this might be passed on as lower rates of employment/hours worked rather than wages.
That is the point. This is not something that will lower the hourly wages of the low paid, it is somethig that may well cost them their jobs entirely. Small businesses, cafes, shops etc which already operate on very small margins will be forced to lay people off and try and cover the additional work themselves.
- The conflict has acquired elements of a global character. Russian military facilities in the Bryansk and Kursk regions were struck by Western missiles. On November 19, 6 ATACMS missiles and on November 21 Storm Shadow missiles struck facilities in Kursk and Bryansk regions.
- Russia struck Yuzhmash with a nuclear-free hypersonic ballistic missile. Ukraine was struck by the newest ballistic hypersonic missile "Oreshnik".
- The latest Russian missiles strike targets at a speed of 2-3 km per second, and the enemy's existing missile defense systems are unable to intercept them.
- The responsibility for the escalation lies with the U.S. The U.S. made a mistake by violating the agreement to eliminate long-range missiles. They have moved their missile systems to various regions around the world.
- In case of escalation, Russia will respond decisively and mirror the actions.
- Russia will offer civilians in Ukraine and citizens of other friendly countries the opportunity to leave potential strike zones in advance, Putin stated.
Russia started the escalation in 2014 by occupying Crimea and Donbass, and escalated even more in February 2022.
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
And in real terms?
Edit:
Just perused the web:
'The Long Term Plan funding settlement set out annual average real-terms increases to the NHS budget for day-to-day spending of 3.4% a year between 2019/20 and 2023/24, measured against the GDP inflation metric, with a profile that saw slightly faster funding growth in the first and last years, and translated into average annual increases of 3% on the NHS inflation measure.'
Though that does need to be standardised for demographics as well as inflation.
An average 85 year old man costs the NHS seven times as much as a thirty-something, and the number of 85+ Britons is going to double in the next 15 years.
This link is a decade old, but the figures in the graph remain true.
We have to run to just stand still. Scrapping the NHS wouldn't save money if insurers had to be universal, it's just that the money would leave our pockets as premiums rather than tax. All universal health insurance is essentially redistributive because the healthy are earning and wealthy and the sick are not earning and poor.
The only way to get out of this is to end universal cover. For example ending cover at state pension age would halve costs, and probably save a fortune in pensions too. There might be a teensy problem though.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
You ned to add BBC Verify to your list as they have now removed the claim that Neidle is an independent expert.
Perhaps he should appoint Giuliani who would fit in perfectly in the cesspit cabinet !
I am kind of surprised he hasn't. There is a man who threw away his whole career and most of his life for the sake of the snake oil salesman. But we all know Trump doesn't do gratitude unless it serves him somehow.
Netanhayu has had more than enough benefit of the doubt. He has a right to lead his government in war. He does not have the right to implement policies which are war crimes. And forced starvation, ethnic cleansing and the targeting of civilians are war crimes. Consequences follow.
FWIW, I subscribe to a (legally dodgy) principle of necessary proportionality when it comes to actions beyond the law. In other words, if your enemy breaks international law and gains an advantage from doing so, the country acted against in such manner must be able to make good that disadvantage. You do not lose a war for the sake of good form when your enemy rejects the principles you are binding yourself to, to begin with. But that is very much not the situation in Gaza.
Time will tell if Starmer has called this right but he's aligning himself with some strange bedfellows and at some point they will turn on his government.
He's also aligning himself with the ICC, which is the relevant factor.
I note the ICC don't mention the word genocide, which will upset a lot of people who describe themselves as pro-Palestine.
Apparently not anymore. He wont now comment on whether he supports the ruling. That will certainly cause him problems. Many in his party will be furious.
Edit - Yeah I should have phrased that better, Matt Gaetz withdraws his name to be the next Attorney General.
I really don't know how Trump gets himself in these positions. He's so successfully captured the support of the party that he has no shortage of absolutely loyal people to choose from who will be fully aligned with whatever he wants to do, so why go for the guy hated by his colleagues in Congress and, even if criminal charges had not been successfully pursued, is at best very sleazy?
It's not even that Trump would have an issue with sleaze, but there have to be Gaetz equivalents without the same negatives.
He's a career criminal.
Career criminals are more comfortable with their own.
Perhaps he should appoint Giuliani who would fit in perfectly in the cesspit cabinet !
I am kind of surprised he hasn't. There is a man who threw away his whole career and most of his life for the sake of the snake oil salesman. But we all know Trump doesn't do gratitude unless it serves him somehow.
Anyone who talks so much about loyalty to themselves is very likely to have very little loyalty towards others.
Giuliani is a doddering fool, bankrupt, and probable drunkard, he's not worth Trump's time. He could have thrown him a bone before now if he was.
When I was at Goldman Sachs in the late 1990s, there was a lady who had worked her way from temp to secretary to financial analyst to associate.
Then one day she was called into the office of the partner in charge of equity research and fired for cause.
She'd lied about her qualification on the CV she had given the temping agency.
We were all a bit shocked: had she not been effectively promoted three times based solely on her ability, and nothing to do with her CV? But it didn't matter. Integrity is simply more important. If you can't trust someone's word, they can't work for you.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
That's true, but the number of people with the earnings in and around £9,100 is very low. It represents about 14 hours a week on the minimum wage, or 10 on median wages, and those on minimum wage can't see their wage suppressed*. Overall, the change is still progressive because higher income households are more likely to be on > NMW wages than other groups.
*Though this might be passed on as lower rates of employment/hours worked rather than wages.
That is the point. This is not something that will lower the hourly wages of the low paid, it is somethig that may well cost them their jobs entirely. Small businesses, cafes, shops etc which already operate on very small margins will be forced to lay people off and try and cover the additional work themselves.
The doubling of the employment allowance will significantly help such smaller businesses. They won't pay any employer NICs whatsoever up to a value of £10,000 - or about 4 full time staff.
It's large employers of NMW staff which you will have to look out for.
Matt Gaetz told people close to him that he concluded after conversations with senators and their staffs that there were at least four Republican senators who were implacably opposed to his nomination: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John Curtis of Utah.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
That's true, but the number of people with the earnings in and around £9,100 is very low. It represents about 14 hours a week on the minimum wage, or 10 on median wages, and those on minimum wage can't see their wage suppressed*. Overall, the change is still progressive because higher income households are more likely to be on > NMW wages than other groups.
*Though this might be passed on as lower rates of employment/hours worked rather than wages.
That is the point. This is not something that will lower the hourly wages of the low paid, it is somethig that may well cost them their jobs entirely. Small businesses, cafes, shops etc which already operate on very small margins will be forced to lay people off and try and cover the additional work themselves.
- The conflict has acquired elements of a global character. Russian military facilities in the Bryansk and Kursk regions were struck by Western missiles. On November 19, 6 ATACMS missiles and on November 21 Storm Shadow missiles struck facilities in Kursk and Bryansk regions.
- Russia struck Yuzhmash with a nuclear-free hypersonic ballistic missile. Ukraine was struck by the newest ballistic hypersonic missile "Oreshnik".
- The latest Russian missiles strike targets at a speed of 2-3 km per second, and the enemy's existing missile defense systems are unable to intercept them.
- The responsibility for the escalation lies with the U.S. The U.S. made a mistake by violating the agreement to eliminate long-range missiles. They have moved their missile systems to various regions around the world.
- In case of escalation, Russia will respond decisively and mirror the actions.
- Russia will offer civilians in Ukraine and citizens of other friendly countries the opportunity to leave potential strike zones in advance, Putin stated.
I think perhaps we could have been active in downplaying the capabilities of what might technically be called long range missiles but barely scratch Russian territory particularly those that have to travel over occupied Ukraine.
These are 150-200 mile range missiles that give an alternative to drones in getting to Russia's late hop logistics hubs before the front line.
They are not, despite their long range label, going to hit Moscow or St. Petersburg or, indeed, anything beyond the border oblasts where those logistics all are.
When I was at Goldman Sachs in the late 1990s, there was a lady who had worked her way from temp to secretary to financial analyst to associate.
Then one day she was called into the office of the partner in charge of equity research and fired for cause.
She'd lied about her qualification on the CV she had given the temping agency.
We were all a bit shocked: had she not been effectively promoted three times based solely on her ability, and nothing to do with her CV? But it didn't matter. Integrity is simply more important. If you can't trust someone's word, they can't work for you.
How ridiculous and hypocritical.
I was involved twenty odd years ago with a case where an applicant had lied on their CV about their age.
Labour have only been in power for 140 days but there’s a palpable sense of disappointment - not just on here but in organs like the FT which reflect, if not shape, global business opinion.
Reeves gave a great Mais Lecture at the beginning of this year, and there’s no shortage of what I might New Model Growthers floating around the Labour tent. As I’ve posted before, what is missing is an overall sense of strategy - a reason to believe.
Something has gone very wrong. I’m not sure Starmer has the imagination to course-correct.
Nothing's gone wrong. Labour increase tax and spend it on their clients - i.e. the public sector unions and the state-adjacent sector. 'Pro-growth' was only ever so much guff and wishful thinking. What's happening is happening by design. This is what Labour do. {and yes, the last lot also focused spend on their clients in the 65+ demographic. I'm not playing angels and devils.}
The Tories need to junk the mollycoddling of the oldies. End the triple-lock.
Let them vote Labour or Reform if they want, and see what happens.
If I remember rightly, Sunak was all for a quadruple lock; an extra tax allowance for pensioners so that the basic state pension would always be tax free, even if working people with the same income would be taxed.
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
I have my 6 months of furlough noted in my CV from my previous job, it's not very difficult to do and I don't think anyone cares really. I'd prefer a potential candidate to be honest and up front about gaps in their CV than to find out later on they've got less experience than advertised.
A lot of people have gaps on their CV. Explain them, rather than invent, is the golden rule.
Labour have only been in power for 140 days but there’s a palpable sense of disappointment - not just on here but in organs like the FT which reflect, if not shape, global business opinion.
Reeves gave a great Mais Lecture at the beginning of this year, and there’s no shortage of what I might New Model Growthers floating around the Labour tent. As I’ve posted before, what is missing is an overall sense of strategy - a reason to believe.
Something has gone very wrong. I’m not sure Starmer has the imagination to course-correct.
Nothing's gone wrong. Labour increase tax and spend it on their clients - i.e. the public sector unions and the state-adjacent sector. 'Pro-growth' was only ever so much guff and wishful thinking. What's happening is happening by design. This is what Labour do. {and yes, the last lot also focused spend on their clients in the 65+ demographic. I'm not playing angels and devils.}
The Tories need to junk the mollycoddling of the oldies. End the triple-lock.
Let them vote Labour or Reform if they want, and see what happens.
If I remember rightly, Sunak was all for a quadruple lock; an extra tax allowance for pensioners so that the basic state pension would always be tax free, even if working people with the same income would be taxed.
Disowning that would be a good start.
I'm waiting for proposals to legislate a requirement for grandchildren to visit their grandparents more often. That might be where the grey vote focus breaks down.
Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNN · 1h EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/ @sarahnferris .” Full story:
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
Powerful analysis. I had not realised how much extra 1% on income tax could raise. My hope is that Labour will get to the pro growth stuff he talks about, but if they feel unpopular/under attack they may duck those big decisions. They've already used the... "We inherited a crock of shit" card... can they do it again next year? At some point it stops working...
It already stopped working as soon as they started on their imagined £20 billion black hole. That was a totally unforced error which opened them up to ridicule.
Disagree. As the Tories like Hunt noted at the time, the black hole/things worse than we feared were jmportant markers to tell a story as to why we needed painful changes.
Osborne was brilliant at this. Laying the blame for all kinds of things at the hands of Labour profligacy.
Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNN · 1h EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/ @sarahnferris .” Full story:
Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNN · 1h EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/ @sarahnferris .” Full story:
Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNN · 1h EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/ @sarahnferris .” Full story:
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
That's not quite true. She touted her experience in financial services as evidence that she knew how to run an economy.
Lying to your own party is par for the course; Boris wasn't sacked for that. Indeed they seemed quite happy with it.
Ah, so the position of Labour supporters is now "well they had Boris Johnson, so our leaders can lie as much as they want." Marvellous. I thought Starmer claimed he was going to clean up politics. That didn't last long did it?
I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't particularly care for either Johnson or Reeves. But you were comparing lying to the Commons with lying to your party - which are definitely not the same thing.
CV lies are "fraud by misrepresentation". It does not matter whether to her party or if it was an application for a job serving Macdonalds. She is a liar and a fraud. And extremely dumb to have done it. She should resign or be sacked.
Ah - so the distinction is that members of the last Tory government never lied on a CV.
I really have no idea, and I don't care. They are no longer in government you dope. We are talking about the current CoE who has been dishonest. A member of a party that quite correctly called out Johnson's lying and made much political capital from it. She should resign, but she clearly has no integrity so she will not. If Starmer does not sack her he condones dishonesty.
Has she lied *as Chancellor*? Because when Johnson was (eventually) booted out, it was for lying as PM - as well as supporting other colleagues whose own misconduct was insupportable, as well as a whole host of other examples of bad behaviour, political misjudgements and embarrassments.
After all, if lying were a career-breaker, we would never have heard from BoJo after he was sacked from the Times. He'd have had to become a schoolmaster or something... That's what most of the gentlemen does, sir, that gets sent down for indecent behavior.
Most of us would never have heard of him. There's a cheerful thought for a chilly night.
Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNN · 1h EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/ @sarahnferris .” Full story:
Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNN · 1h EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/ @sarahnferris .” Full story:
Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNN · 1h EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/ @sarahnferris .” Full story:
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
And in real terms?
Edit:
Just perused the web:
'The Long Term Plan funding settlement set out annual average real-terms increases to the NHS budget for day-to-day spending of 3.4% a year between 2019/20 and 2023/24, measured against the GDP inflation metric, with a profile that saw slightly faster funding growth in the first and last years, and translated into average annual increases of 3% on the NHS inflation measure.'
Though that does need to be standardised for demographics as well as inflation.
An average 85 year old man costs the NHS seven times as much as a thirty-something, and the number of 85+ Britons is going to double in the next 15 years.
This link is a decade old, but the figures in the graph remain true.
We have to run to just stand still. Scrapping the NHS wouldn't save money if insurers had to be universal, it's just that the money would leave our pockets as premiums rather than tax. All universal health insurance is essentially redistributive because the healthy are earning and wealthy and the sick are not earning and poor.
The only way to get out of this is to end universal cover. For example ending cover at state pension age would halve costs, and probably save a fortune in pensions too. There might be a teensy problem though.
So you’re saying we could reduce NHS costs considerably with just a few minor tweaks to the assisted dying Bill?
Worth considering. The “Logan’s Run” clause. And if we also draw inspiration from Soylent Green, we can increase our food security.
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
I have my 6 months of furlough noted in my CV from my previous job, it's not very difficult to do and I don't think anyone cares really. I'd prefer a potential candidate to be honest and up front about gaps in their CV than to find out later on they've got less experience than advertised.
A lot of people have gaps on their CV. Explain them, rather than invent, is the golden rule.
It's a while since I applied for a job, but when I did have a CV it had a 4 month gap labelled "backpacking in Asia". The only remarks or questions that I ever got about it were positive.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
Powerful analysis. I had not realised how much extra 1% on income tax could raise. My hope is that Labour will get to the pro growth stuff he talks about, but if they feel unpopular/under attack they may duck those big decisions. They've already used the... "We inherited a crock of shit" card... can they do it again next year? At some point it stops working...
It already stopped working as soon as they started on their imagined £20 billion black hole. That was a totally unforced error which opened them up to ridicule.
Disagree. As the Tories like Hunt noted at the time, the black hole/things worse than we feared were jmportant markers to tell a story as to why we needed painful changes.
Osborne was brilliant at this. Laying the blame for all kinds of things at the hands of Labour profligacy.
And he was just as wrong and lacking in reputation as Reeves now is. The pasty tax debacle didn't come out of nowhere. It happened because his reputation was already shot. I had hoped Labour were bright enough to avoid this self inflicted wound.
How elese do you account for the fact that trust in them has already collapsed in record (excepting Truss) time?
So she's better than the last two years of the Tories and she's only been there for 6 months.......
Where's the scoop?
She has full on lied on her CV. In any other walk of life that would be gross misconduct that would lead to dismissal.
Johnson was quite correctly ousted for lying. Reeves should resign, and if the liar does not, she should be sacked or Starmer is no better than Johnson.
First, has she lied or did she merely stretch the actualité?
Second, what has her CV to do with her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor?
It is not as if anyone called for Tony Blair to resign over his claimed favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron over his support for West Villa United (although there was a bit of a fuss over Blair and Jackie Milburn).
The two latter examples are absurd comparisons that are not relevant.
She lied on her CV and her LinkedIn profile, both in the duration of her role and the job title and type of organisation, with a clear intent to deceive . It was not a mistake, an exaggeration, or stretching of the truth, it was a full on lie that would be enough, as I say, to cause someone to be fired in any other walk of life.
Perhaps to some Labour supporters lying is only a bad thing when it is done by Tories?
Aside from a few light-hearted PB posts whenever West Ham and Aston Villa meet, no-one remarks on Cameron's fibs.
Even if you are right that Reeves lied on LinkedIn, there is no obvious link between that and her election to parliament or appointment as Chancellor. It is like pointing to her recently-dyed hair and complaining she is lying about its true colour: she might be but there is no link to any material benefit.
It really is quite simple. If someone lies on their CV it matters not whether it was material to them getting appointed, though without a parallel universe that is unknown. The point is that the individual is fundamentally and demonstrably dishonest. I might be old fashioned but I prefer the leaders of my country not to be proven liars, hence why I was always opposed to Johnson.
Without any material benefit, it is not even clear Reeves lied or merely applied a little gloss. In my own career there has often been little discernible relationship between job title and function. She was an economist and she was employed.
Total nonsense and you know it. Your "my party right or wrong" is rather disappointing as I thought you were smarter than that. As TSE just mentioned with respect to Johnson, it is about integrity. Reeves has proven she has none.
I really don't care if Reeves stays or goes. Her budget seems an ad hoc collection of too clever by half wheezes and wishful thinking (cf George Osborne). But it is on this basis she should be judged, not on irrelevant LinkedIn posts.
She, like all politician should be judged on integrity. She has none.
Boris Johnson's CV was also known to be innacurate. Perhaps we could sue him or better still reverse some of his more egregious actions during his time in office.
Yes, all those visas he recklessly issued shouldn’t be extended.
I was thinking of all things Brexit. Perhaps we could subpoena the Red Bus to appear in court
The funny thing is, the NHS did get £350 million a week more....and more on top.
Spending on NHS went from £140bn a year to over £180bn before last budget.
And in real terms?
Edit:
Just perused the web:
'The Long Term Plan funding settlement set out annual average real-terms increases to the NHS budget for day-to-day spending of 3.4% a year between 2019/20 and 2023/24, measured against the GDP inflation metric, with a profile that saw slightly faster funding growth in the first and last years, and translated into average annual increases of 3% on the NHS inflation measure.'
Though that does need to be standardised for demographics as well as inflation.
An average 85 year old man costs the NHS seven times as much as a thirty-something, and the number of 85+ Britons is going to double in the next 15 years.
This link is a decade old, but the figures in the graph remain true.
We have to run to just stand still. Scrapping the NHS wouldn't save money if insurers had to be universal, it's just that the money would leave our pockets as premiums rather than tax. All universal health insurance is essentially redistributive because the healthy are earning and wealthy and the sick are not earning and poor.
The only way to get out of this is to end universal cover. For example ending cover at state pension age would halve costs, and probably save a fortune in pensions too. There might be a teensy problem though.
So you’re saying we could reduce NHS costs considerably with just a few minor tweaks to the assisted dying Bill?
Worth considering. The “Logan’s Run” clause. And if we also draw inspiration from Soylent Green, we can increase our food security.
Increased IHT receipts, and solves the housing problem too.
On cv question - I was employed by civil service and got leave to go do a masters degree. Is it dishonest that I include that period as working at civil service (I was under contract but not paid)?
I have my 6 months of furlough noted in my CV from my previous job, it's not very difficult to do and I don't think anyone cares really. I'd prefer a potential candidate to be honest and up front about gaps in their CV than to find out later on they've got less experience than advertised.
A lot of people have gaps on their CV. Explain them, rather than invent, is the golden rule.
It's a while since I applied for a job, but when I did have a CV it had a 4 month gap labelled "backpacking in Asia". The only remarks or questions that I ever got about it were positive.
I've only hired a few people, and was made to chase up a gap of about 2 months, I confess I wasn't clear what the lack of knowledge about such a small period might have revealed that would have been relevant, but I'm sure it is all from an abundance of caution.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
Powerful analysis. I had not realised how much extra 1% on income tax could raise. My hope is that Labour will get to the pro growth stuff he talks about, but if they feel unpopular/under attack they may duck those big decisions. They've already used the... "We inherited a crock of shit" card... can they do it again next year? At some point it stops working...
It already stopped working as soon as they started on their imagined £20 billion black hole. That was a totally unforced error which opened them up to ridicule.
The figure I've seen is £7.5 billion for every 1% increase in basic rate tax and about £2 billion from every 1p rise in higher rate tax.
Increasing basic rate tax to 25p should, in theory, raise £37.5 billion (probably wouldn't) with a rise to 50p higher rate raising another £20 billion (also in theory).
We know the two problem areas are thresholds and the cliff-edge nature of moving to the higher rate so I think we need to be a bit clever and implement a gradual rise in tax rates so perhaps a 33.33p tax segment and then a 40p tax rare before we get to 50p. As for the thresholds, were I Chancellor, I'd raise them by double RPI to take some of the lower paid out of the higher rate tax trap they've been dragged into by the years of Conservative "fiscal drag".
The borrowing and deficit figures today were ugly and we're paying £9 billion a month in debt interest which could otherwise have spent on other things.
Employer NI contributions have contributed nearly £67 billion this calendar year so far and the increases from April in both the rate and the level where payments start are likely to bring in more to the Treasury but I'd prefer some serious honesty from the Chancellor - the Party's over and we all need to pay the bill.
- The conflict has acquired elements of a global character. Russian military facilities in the Bryansk and Kursk regions were struck by Western missiles. On November 19, 6 ATACMS missiles and on November 21 Storm Shadow missiles struck facilities in Kursk and Bryansk regions.
- Russia struck Yuzhmash with a nuclear-free hypersonic ballistic missile. Ukraine was struck by the newest ballistic hypersonic missile "Oreshnik".
- The latest Russian missiles strike targets at a speed of 2-3 km per second, and the enemy's existing missile defense systems are unable to intercept them.
- The responsibility for the escalation lies with the U.S. The U.S. made a mistake by violating the agreement to eliminate long-range missiles. They have moved their missile systems to various regions around the world.
- In case of escalation, Russia will respond decisively and mirror the actions.
- Russia will offer civilians in Ukraine and citizens of other friendly countries the opportunity to leave potential strike zones in advance, Putin stated.
No, Putin. The use of ATACMS and Storm Shadow against Russia is *not* an escalation. You have been using short and medium-range missiles and drones you have obtained from North Korea and Iran against Ukraine. The use of Storm Shadow and ATACMS is a response to that. If you use foreign nation's weapons against Ukraine, Ukraine can use foreign nation's weapons against you. That was the mirror action.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
Powerful analysis. I had not realised how much extra 1% on income tax could raise. My hope is that Labour will get to the pro growth stuff he talks about, but if they feel unpopular/under attack they may duck those big decisions. They've already used the... "We inherited a crock of shit" card... can they do it again next year? At some point it stops working...
It already stopped working as soon as they started on their imagined £20 billion black hole. That was a totally unforced error which opened them up to ridicule.
The figure I've seen is £7.5 billion for every 1% increase in basic rate tax and about £2 billion from every 1p rise in higher rate tax.
Increasing basic rate tax to 25p should, in theory, raise £37.5 billion (probably wouldn't) with a rise to 50p higher rate raising another £20 billion (also in theory).
We know the two problem areas are thresholds and the cliff-edge nature of moving to the higher rate so I think we need to be a bit clever and implement a gradual rise in tax rates so perhaps a 33.33p tax segment and then a 40p tax rare before we get to 50p. As for the thresholds, were I Chancellor, I'd raise them by double RPI to take some of the lower paid out of the higher rate tax trap they've been dragged into by the years of Conservative "fiscal drag".
The borrowing and deficit figures today were ugly and we're paying £9 billion a month in debt interest which could otherwise have spent on other things.
Employer NI contributions have contributed nearly £67 billion this calendar year so far and the increases from April in both the rate and the level where payments start are likely to bring in more to the Treasury but I'd prefer some serious honesty from the Chancellor - the Party's over and we all need to pay the bill.
I would scrap the tapering of the personal allowance from £100k, and scrap the 40p rate, BUT drop the 45p rate as low as needed to compensate.
When you play with the numbers, it is possible to smooth out the curve.
Dan Neidle has put out a fairly lengthy post on the budget. Note to @Richard_Tyndall and the Daily Telegraph he is pretty excoriating about the whole thing - certainly not acting the role of loyal Labour apparatchik.
He is particularly cross about the NI changes. I still can't get my head around why they dropped the lower income threshold - an extremely regressive tax change if you assume the impact gets at least partly passed on into pay.
Powerful analysis. I had not realised how much extra 1% on income tax could raise. My hope is that Labour will get to the pro growth stuff he talks about, but if they feel unpopular/under attack they may duck those big decisions. They've already used the... "We inherited a crock of shit" card... can they do it again next year? At some point it stops working...
It already stopped working as soon as they started on their imagined £20 billion black hole. That was a totally unforced error which opened them up to ridicule.
The figure I've seen is £7.5 billion for every 1% increase in basic rate tax and about £2 billion from every 1p rise in higher rate tax.
Increasing basic rate tax to 25p should, in theory, raise £37.5 billion (probably wouldn't) with a rise to 50p higher rate raising another £20 billion (also in theory).
We know the two problem areas are thresholds and the cliff-edge nature of moving to the higher rate so I think we need to be a bit clever and implement a gradual rise in tax rates so perhaps a 33.33p tax segment and then a 40p tax rare before we get to 50p. As for the thresholds, were I Chancellor, I'd raise them by double RPI to take some of the lower paid out of the higher rate tax trap they've been dragged into by the years of Conservative "fiscal drag".
The borrowing and deficit figures today were ugly and we're paying £9 billion a month in debt interest which could otherwise have spent on other things.
Employer NI contributions have contributed nearly £67 billion this calendar year so far and the increases from April in both the rate and the level where payments start are likely to bring in more to the Treasury but I'd prefer some serious honesty from the Chancellor - the Party's over and we all need to pay the bill.
What the West needs is an argument with China over a point of principle that we can use as an excuse to unilaterally write off our debts with it. Keep the markets happy with the fiction.
I am available as chief adviser if Rachel Reeves wants me. Don’t look too closely at me cv…
Paula Reid @PaulaReidCNN · 1h EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/ @sarahnferris .” Full story:
This is an anti-everything except unicycles barrier between the Erewash Canal Towpath (which is a PROW and decently surfaced, wide and flat), and an area of woodland.
I think it's vintage late 1980s, but I don't know these well. That is like the ironwork used on some Kent Carriage Gaps. Kent carriage gaps are ones with bollards or ironwork such that a normal width horse buggy can theoretically get through onto a Restricted Byway.
You don't need to worry though - there are a number of anti-most-wheelchairs barriers * on the tow path itself so you can never get there to be blocked by it.
* These may make be challengeable under the "obstruction on a public highway" law I mentioned wrt to pavement parking earlier.
I guess the real issue is that most people actually qualified to be AG tend to have a tiresome attachment to the rule of law which outweighs their attachment to the Republican Party.
This is an anti-everything except unicycles barrier between the Erewash Canal Towpath (which is a PROW and decently surfaced, wide and flat), and an area of woodland.
I think it's vintage late 1980s, but I don't know these well. That is like the ironwork used on some Kent Carriage Gaps.
You don't need to worry though - there are a number of anti-most-wheelchairs barriers * on the tow path itself so you can never get there to be blocked by it.
* These may make be challengeable under the "obstruction on a public highway" law I mentioned wrt to pavement parking earlier.
Surprised in these more accessible times that there has not been a more concerted effort to get rid of these sorts of abominations.
I guess the real issue is that most people actually qualified to be AG tend to have a tiresome attachment to the rule of law which outweighs their attachment to the Republican Party.
Jeffrey Clark was a figure at the DOJ who Trump tried to making acting AG so he could stay on in 2020, he reportedly even told his boss he was out and Clark was replacing him, and the guy said he refused to be fired by his own subordinate (or words to that effect), rushed to the White House, and most of the legal counsel there said they'd resign if Trump tried it.
Anyone know what the website 'London Pulse' is? It seems to be a very popular Tory site with 2.5 million viewers but its described on as a netball site.
Comments
*Though this might be passed on as lower rates of employment/hours worked rather than wages.
(Ducks!)
Then they could actually cut our taxes, and tell the nurses and doctors to go jump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axcD3fxhlgQ
I note the ICC don't mention the word genocide, which will upset a lot of people who describe themselves as pro-Palestine.
Attorney General Matt Gaetz has brought down his first and last sex criminal, Attorney General Matt Gaetz.
One that needs changing is that Bona Vacantia (ie intestate) estates need to be handled the same everywhere.
At present those within the boundaries of the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster (ie supporting the Prince of Wales and the King) go to those bodies, rather than "the nation".
I'm a pragmatic Royalist, but that is not OK.
Here's a recent Mark Felton vid about how the estates of such people went to the these Duchies even for those killed in bombing raids in WW2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmwsb9j4tWU
Tenure of Trump appointees must now me measured in reverse Scaramuccis.
I make this -6 Mooches.
The downside for them is I am unlikely to particularly reward them if things do go well, as I'll assume it was chance, not design.
That £22bn will be totally spunked up the wall on the NHS, and the Tories will have to get the scythe out again to get it under control again
It is sensible to give them both less praise and criticism than most on this board or in the press do.
It's not even that Trump would have an issue with sleaze, but there have to be Gaetz equivalents without the same negatives.
Let them vote Labour or Reform if they want, and see what happens.
If Trump wants to smash the system, he can't appoint people who respect the system
Trump does not have a new name in mind for attorney general and now returns to the search. He had struggled to find a candidate he liked initially, which is what led him to Gaetz. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Sullivan & Cromwell attorney Robert Giuffra had been two names he was looking at last week. Trump wasn't sold on either. He has been mainly focused on Treasury and the FBI this week.
It is not sustainable
He is not short on options for people to smash the system, this isn't like if he is hunting around for a disruptive centi-billionaire who owns a media platform to engage with and has only one choice.
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1859648070264271087
- The conflict has acquired elements of a global character. Russian military facilities in the Bryansk and Kursk regions were struck by Western missiles. On November 19, 6 ATACMS missiles and on November 21 Storm Shadow missiles struck facilities in Kursk and Bryansk regions.
- Russia struck Yuzhmash with a nuclear-free hypersonic ballistic missile. Ukraine was struck by the newest ballistic hypersonic missile "Oreshnik".
- The latest Russian missiles strike targets at a speed of 2-3 km per second, and the enemy's existing missile defense systems are unable to intercept them.
- The responsibility for the escalation lies with the U.S. The U.S. made a mistake by violating the agreement to eliminate long-range missiles. They have moved their missile systems to various regions around the world.
- In case of escalation, Russia will respond decisively and mirror the actions.
- Russia will offer civilians in Ukraine and citizens of other friendly countries the opportunity to leave potential strike zones in advance, Putin stated.
An average 85 year old man costs the NHS seven times as much as a thirty-something, and the number of 85+ Britons is going to double in the next 15 years.
This link is a decade old, but the figures in the graph remain true.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/01/ageing-britain-two-fifths-nhs-budget-spent-over-65s
We have to run to just stand still. Scrapping the NHS wouldn't save money if insurers had to be universal, it's just that the money would leave our pockets as premiums rather than tax. All universal health insurance is essentially redistributive because the healthy are earning and wealthy and the sick are not earning and poor.
The only way to get out of this is to end universal cover. For example ending cover at state pension age would halve costs, and probably save a fortune in pensions too. There might be a teensy problem though.
Career criminals are more comfortable with their own.
Giuliani is a doddering fool, bankrupt, and probable drunkard, he's not worth Trump's time. He could have thrown him a bone before now if he was.
It's large employers of NMW staff which you will have to look out for.
NY Times
These are 150-200 mile range missiles that give an alternative to drones in getting to Russia's late hop logistics hubs before the front line.
They are not, despite their long range label, going to hit Moscow or St. Petersburg or, indeed, anything beyond the border oblasts where those logistics all are.
They were found out after interview stage.
Plus ca change.
Disowning that would be a good start.
Explain them, rather than invent, is the golden rule.
Paula Reid
@PaulaReidCNN
·
1h
EXCLUSIVE: Gaetz withdrew from AG nomination 45 mins after we called to say we were going to report that “Ethics committee told there was a *second* sexual encounter between Gaetz and 17 year old in 2017.” w/
@sarahnferris
.” Full story:
https://x.com/PaulaReidCNN/status/1859651549993238811
Osborne was brilliant at this. Laying the blame for all kinds of things at the hands of Labour profligacy.
Epstein's out....
Most of us would never have heard of him. There's a cheerful thought for a chilly night.
He should've payed attention to Nadine Dorries.
Unfortunately (ie fortunately) there was of precedent that the report would be published in those circumstances.
That's quite like police officers who took early retirement when under investigation, before it could finish. I think that loophole has been removed.
Worth considering. The “Logan’s Run” clause. And if we also draw inspiration from Soylent Green, we can increase our food security.
How elese do you account for the fact that trust in them has already collapsed in record (excepting Truss) time?
It really is a no brainer!
Increasing basic rate tax to 25p should, in theory, raise £37.5 billion (probably wouldn't) with a rise to 50p higher rate raising another £20 billion (also in theory).
We know the two problem areas are thresholds and the cliff-edge nature of moving to the higher rate so I think we need to be a bit clever and implement a gradual rise in tax rates so perhaps a 33.33p tax segment and then a 40p tax rare before we get to 50p. As for the thresholds, were I Chancellor, I'd raise them by double RPI to take some of the lower paid out of the higher rate tax trap they've been dragged into by the years of Conservative "fiscal drag".
The borrowing and deficit figures today were ugly and we're paying £9 billion a month in debt interest which could otherwise have spent on other things.
Employer NI contributions have contributed nearly £67 billion this calendar year so far and the increases from April in both the rate and the level where payments start are likely to bring in more to the Treasury but I'd prefer some serious honesty from the Chancellor - the Party's over and we all need to pay the bill.
When you play with the numbers, it is possible to smooth out the curve.
I am available as chief adviser if Rachel Reeves wants me. Don’t look too closely at me cv…
This is an anti-everything except unicycles barrier between the Erewash Canal Towpath (which is a PROW and decently surfaced, wide and flat), and an area of woodland.
I think it's vintage late 1980s, but I don't know these well. That is like the ironwork used on some Kent Carriage Gaps. Kent carriage gaps are ones with bollards or ironwork such that a normal width horse buggy can theoretically get through onto a Restricted Byway.
You don't need to worry though - there are a number of anti-most-wheelchairs barriers * on the tow path itself so you can never get there to be blocked by it.
* These may make be challengeable under the "obstruction on a public highway" law I mentioned wrt to pavement parking earlier.
https://x.com/lara_e_brown/status/1859593239860277541
In August the Home Office introduced a Zombie Knife amnesty. They agreed to pay £10 per knife.
They expected that 472 Zombie Knives would be surrendered.
Instead, one wholesaler alone has surrendered 35,000 blades.
So he could be a pick.
https://www.youtube.com/@TheLondonPulse