A brutal chart for Labour from the FT – politicalbetting.com

Have we mentioned this? Armoured drone flies through Sun (well, the frilly bit) for Christmas.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q7lnyw25wo

"The probe will have to endure temperatures of 1,400C and radiation that could frazzle the onboard electronics.

It is protected by a 11.5cm (4.5 inches) thick carbon-composite shield but the spacecraft's tactic is to get in and out fast.

In fact, it will be moving faster than any human-made object, hurtling at 430,000mph - the equivalent of flying from London to New York in less than 30 seconds."

Pity about the crap copyediting and that missing 'other'.

algarkirk said:

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.

He could make Ed Balls chancellor from the Lords.

Chancellor has to be in the Commons. The original idea was the Chancellor would act as spokesman for the First Lord (who until the 1860s controlled the Treasury directly) if the First Lord was a peer- essentially the role now fulfilled by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. If the First Lord was an MP, usually there was no Chancellor at all.

That could be changed I suppose (as the Lord Chancellor's role was eventually) but it wouldn't be as straightforward as just ennobling Balls and appointing him (as Blair found when he tried to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor via a reshuffle).

Not convinced. If the PM just went ahead and appointed a CoE from the Lords, or appointed and put him/her there no force on earth could or would stop that happening.

Litigation would be the only route. It would not happen.

BTW, we are going to need a second chamber with a non elected element increasingly. More and more as the political quality declines PMs will have to look to appointments to get ministerial jobs done. Lord Salisbury would find this quite amusing.

Thta again is what Blair thought in sacking Irvine. He found it didn't work that way. Standing orders would need rewriting, not least so that Chancellor can claim a salary.

The way it could be done differently is to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer the post for the Leader of the House and appoint Balls as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster instead, but handing him control of the Treasury. It would however look stupid and panicky.

This bodes well...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx27yx1y0deo

Protests erupt in Syria over Christmas tree burning

Protests have broken out in Syria over the burning of a Christmas tree near the city of Hama.

A video posted on social media showed masked gunmen setting fire to the tree on display in the main square of the Suqaylabiyah, a Christian-majority town in central Syria.

The main Islamist faction which led the uprising that toppled President Bashar al-Assad said the men responsible for the arson were foreign fighters and had been detained and that the tree would be swiftly repaired.

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.

So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.

I think I agree with more or less the whole of this account. And would add that if this government is going to be unpopular anyway, it may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and do what is right for the country even if it loses the next election. (It may be their best chance of winning it).

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.

So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.

I think I agree with more or less the whole of this account. And would add that if this government is going to be unpopular anyway, it may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and do what is right for the country even if it loses the next election. (It may be their best chance of winning it).

Yes, they should have just hiked income tax by a couple of pennies and been done with it.

Instead, they’ve angered a whole load of organised interest groups, and the ratio of political capital spent to additional income earned has been somewhat less than optimal.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Spoiler alert.

A lucky few PBers will find in their stocking or under the tree Kingmaker by Sir Graham Brady (old lady) who describes Theresa May meeting backbenchers:-

As colleagues left, it was clear that the prevailing mood was much the same as at the end of Dave’s parties. MPs coming out of those would always remark that ‘it would be so much better if he actually listened’. They were saying the same thing again.
Brady, Graham. Kingmaker: Secrets, Lies, and the Truth about Five Prime Ministers

My father got a copy of that for his birthday a couple of months back, says it’s a very good read.

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

Off topic, I remember the pre-Covid days, when we all still had to turn up in the office on Christmas Eve, faff about for the morning listening to Christmas music, and then have a boss tell us to get on our way around lunchtime. Today, checking our office desk booking app, only two dedicated souls have made it in.

This does mean, however, that for those WFH, it is up to the individual when they decide it is time to down tools. Is 09:00 too early?

Out of my team of 24 only one person is working in the office today.

The fact he’s got three young kids and his in-laws are staying has influenced his decision to not WFH or take annual leave.

Volunteered to cover Christmas Day and Boxing Day too?

The Russian ship Ursa Major - on its way to collect Russian kit from Syria - suffered an explosion before it sank.

Maybe it should have suffered the explosion after it had collected? There'd have been even more suspects then...

Zelensky reporting that of the 12,000 or so North Korean troops sent to Ukraine, 3,000 are already dead or injured.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

Off topic, I remember the pre-Covid days, when we all still had to turn up in the office on Christmas Eve, faff about for the morning listening to Christmas music, and then have a boss tell us to get on our way around lunchtime. Today, checking our office desk booking app, only two dedicated souls have made it in.

This does mean, however, that for those WFH, it is up to the individual when they decide it is time to down tools. Is 09:00 too early?

Out of my team of 24 only one person is working in the office today.

The fact he’s got three young kids and his in-laws are staying has influenced his decision to not WFH or take annual leave.

Volunteered to cover Christmas Day and Boxing Day too?

He loves his kids and he loves his in-laws but the two together on Christmas Eve is something he cannot handle.

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

Off topic, I remember the pre-Covid days, when we all still had to turn up in the office on Christmas Eve, faff about for the morning listening to Christmas music, and then have a boss tell us to get on our way around lunchtime. Today, checking our office desk booking app, only two dedicated souls have made it in.

This does mean, however, that for those WFH, it is up to the individual when they decide it is time to down tools. Is 09:00 too early?

Only if you are not checking emails and Teams messages until lunchtime

So far today I have received two emails:

One confirming that I have submitted my timesheet.
One a weekly newsletter from the IChemE.

If only it could be like this every day!

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

Another reminder that wages have to go up and go up substantially. The faux capitalists that wish to run a business on cheap labour and government subsidy have no place in a modern European economy. Don't like Polish plumbers - train and pay the locals. Don't like nurses of a certain hue? Stopping robbing other countries of their skilled. Train and pay the locals.

There is another reason for paying higher wages. The UK benefit system has various ratchets which automatically increase benefit payments without a change in legislation. Suppressing wages just makes staying on benefits a rational economic decision. Raise wages and make work pay.

And another reminder that it is the tax and benefits system and not wages that makes work not pay.

Someone working 16 hours gets maximum benefits for minimum work. If they work any more then they pay tax, NI and 55% taper on top and lose other benefits. So they rationally don't.

Minimum wage has been ramped up and up and up for years now, in real terms and not just notionally. It hasn't fixed the problem as its not wage rates that are the problem, its the fact the Treasury wants to keep everything people work for if they do any more than part time hours.

MarqueeMark said:

Zelensky reporting that of the 12,000 or so North Korean troops sent to Ukraine, 3,000 are already dead or injured.

The other 9000 never left the barracks after finding sites like OnlyFans exist on the uncensored interwebs....

Good morning

Depressing chart for Labour and all their own work

Talking down the economy and the black hole pre dated the July election, accelerated post July, then they withdrew the WFP while awarding inflation busting pay rises to train drivers and medics, then delivered a budget that not only increased employer NI but delivered a large rise in the NMW, and introduced the worker's rights bill, all of which were job destroying anti growth policies

Then, quite rightly, refused the WASPI compensation claim in a breathtaking hypocritical reverse ferret, as nearly every cabinet minister had publicly backed the WASPIs before the election

There is nothing wrong in increasing the minimum wage, but in the financial situation we are now in, post covid and war in Ukraine, it has to be affordable

Labour will hope when these pay rises filter into pay packets in April they will get a boost, but not if it is accompanied by a rise in unemployment, higher interest rates, a flat economy near recession, and facing a new round of public sector pay awards which cannot be more than the 2.8% already suggested

And of course the triple lock is unaffordable and has to go

Add in the ludicrous gifts of clothing, glasses, football and concert tickets and now the cronyism of awarding Sue Gray a peerage is it any wonder that Labour are struggling

With a moribund conservative party, into this vacuum steps Farage, Reform, Musk and Trump threatening to hoover up disenchanted voters and change the political climate once again

Happy Christmas everyone

Labour to restore deadline to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the UK to 2030 after the last Conservative government had increased it to 2035
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7x3jgw7no

MarqueeMark said:

The Russian ship Ursa Major - on its way to collect Russian kit from Syria - suffered an explosion before it sank.

Maybe it should have suffered the explosion after it had collected? There'd have been even more suspects then...

There’s conflicting reports about her cargo and destination.

https://x.com/oalexanderdk/status/1871364800451944943

It appears that she may have been en route to Vladivostok, carrying two large cranes to be delivered to the port there, and two large components for an ice-breaker ship under construction in that port.

If this is correct, then it’s even worse for the Russians than if it was heading to Syria.

'A Nasa spacecraft is attempting to make history with the closest-ever approach to the Sun.

The Parker Solar Probe is plunging into our star's outer atmosphere, enduring brutal temperatures and extreme radiation.

It is out of communication for several days during this burning hot fly-by and scientists will be waiting for a signal, expected at 05:00 GMT on 28 December, to see if it has survived.'


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q7lnyw25wo

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

What are these days off people speak of?

Some of us had to book a day’s annual leave for tomorrow!

Indeed. And we should remember all those who need to work on Christmas Day to keep the country running: not just nurses, police and firefighters, but people like those staffing power stations.

IMO a good sign of a 'key worker' should be "Role needs to be able to work on Christmas Day."

Or indeed, staffing petrol stations and shops that stay open Christmas Day, like at Burntwood Morrisons, although I hope they are all volunteers being paid decent overtime rates.

There's always plenty of shops open in Bradford on Christmas Day.

MarqueeMark said:

bondegezou said:

Here's the House Ethics ccttee report on Matt Gaetz: https://ethics.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Committee-Report.pdf

In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following:
• From at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him.
• In 2017, Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl.
• During the period 2017 to 2019, Representative Gaetz used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions.
• Representative Gaetz accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts.
• In 2018, Representative Gaetz arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent.
• Representative Gaetz knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct.
• Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the House.

And this guy, Trump wanted to be his Attorney General.

And he's probably not Trump's worst pick...

Trump's worst pick, that's a good game. For me the FBI guy shades it but the competition is fierce. Amongst the more obvious candidates I'd like to give a shout-out to "Dr Oz". I mean, c'mon, wtf.

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

xAI, Elon Musk’s AI company, has raised $6 billion, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.

Investors gave a minimum of $77,593, per the filing (97 participated, but the document doesn’t reveal their identities). xAI later announced (confirming some earlier reporting) that Andreessen Horowitz , Blackrock, Fidelity, Kingdom Holdings, Lightspeed, MGX, Morgan Stanley, OIA, QIA, Sequoia Capital, Valor Equity Partners, Vy Capital, Nvidia, AMD, and others numbered among them.

The new cash brings xAI’s total raised to $12 billion, adding to the $6 billion tranche xAI raised this spring. CNBC reported in November that xAI was aiming for a $50 billion valuation — double its valuation of six months prior.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/23/elon-musks-xai-lands-billions-in-new-cash-to-fuel-ai-ambitions/

That meme AI for twitter users is becoming worth some proper money.

It's all about the hardware at the moment; you need very deep pockets. The talent will go where the big toys are.

Of course, my point being people thought it was a a bit of a joke thing, oh look they have created a silly LLM that does memes, what nonsense. They now raised $12bn from big boy investors and already got a 100k GPU cluster up and running in a short space of time. Hint, its clearly not for being a meme generator...

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

SandyRentool said:

If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.

Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.

Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.

Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.

80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.

Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.

Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.

So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.

Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well

Anyone giving odds on the solar probe regaining contact on Sunday morning ?

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.

So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.

Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture on welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too

The very existence of NI, distinct from income tax, is the problem that needs to be solved because it creates too many perverse incentives in the system as a whole.

kinabalu said:

MarqueeMark said:

bondegezou said:

Here's the House Ethics ccttee report on Matt Gaetz: https://ethics.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Committee-Report.pdf

In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following:
• From at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him.
• In 2017, Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl.
• During the period 2017 to 2019, Representative Gaetz used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions.
• Representative Gaetz accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts.
• In 2018, Representative Gaetz arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent.
• Representative Gaetz knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct.
• Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the House.

And this guy, Trump wanted to be his Attorney General.

And he's probably not Trump's worst pick...

Trump's worst pick, that's a good game. For me the FBI guy shades it but the competition is fierce. Amongst the more obvious candidates I'd like to give a shout-out to "Dr Oz". I mean, c'mon, wtf.

In terms of sheer devastation wreaked, we'll have to wait and see.
On that score, I'd put in a word for Stephen Miller.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Cookie said:

Roger said:

This could be a reaction to what Reeves might have done in her budget or it might be a reaction to what is likely to happen in the US with Trump or it could just be a bunch of whingeing directors predicting doom as they often do

The only certainty is that if she want's to instantly turn the graph around all they need to do is announce that the UK are starting talks to fully rejoin the EU thus addiing an estimated 4-5% to our GDP.

......and also making the UK a much more cheerful place.

Ooh, yes, more constitutional wrangling about Europe - that'll cheer people up. Worked brilliantly last time. Bound to be a recipe for harmony.

(I think you might be extrapolating from "Roger" to "people" here).

No it was from Newsnight a week or so ago. There didn't seem to be much argument about the 4-5% GDP. I thought it was pretty smart to have that figure embedded in most peoples consciousness available to be pulled out when appropriate. It all feels like a softening up exercise. What advertisers call 'a teaser campaign'

I have said this to you before

We cannot rejoin the EU without either a manifesto commitment or another referendum neither of which are possible before 2029

I support rejoining the single market and even freedom of movement whilst remaining outside the EU but even that would be near impossible in the short term

The other issue you do not seem to recognise is does the EU really want to recommence negotiations to rejoin, when the next UK government could want to leave and what shape will the EU be in post German and French elections ?

You mourn for something that is frankly years away

Bit like a Tory government.

Jordan Peterson blames Boris for wrecking the economy (via Carrie, immigration and Net Zero). (1-minute video)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dG21TpxUPRk

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Cookie said:

Roger said:

This could be a reaction to what Reeves might have done in her budget or it might be a reaction to what is likely to happen in the US with Trump or it could just be a bunch of whingeing directors predicting doom as they often do

The only certainty is that if she want's to instantly turn the graph around all they need to do is announce that the UK are starting talks to fully rejoin the EU thus addiing an estimated 4-5% to our GDP.

......and also making the UK a much more cheerful place.

Ooh, yes, more constitutional wrangling about Europe - that'll cheer people up. Worked brilliantly last time. Bound to be a recipe for harmony.

(I think you might be extrapolating from "Roger" to "people" here).

No it was from Newsnight a week or so ago. There didn't seem to be much argument about the 4-5% GDP. I thought it was pretty smart to have that figure embedded in most peoples consciousness available to be pulled out when appropriate. It all feels like a softening up exercise. What advertisers call 'a teaser campaign'

I have said this to you before

We cannot rejoin the EU without either a manifesto commitment or another referendum neither of which are possible before 2029

I support rejoining the single market and even freedom of movement whilst remaining outside the EU but even that would be near impossible in the short term

The other issue you do not seem to recognise is does the EU really want to recommence negotiations to rejoin, when the next UK government could want to leave and what shape will the EU be in post German and French elections ?

You mourn for something that is frankly years away

One massive unsaid advantage of being outside the EU, is that what the EU is doing isn’t really UK news any more.

Whether it’s trying to censor Google and Facebook, trying to regulate AI out of business - or, today’s news, trying to pick a fight with Qatar over gas imports. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/minister-says-qatar-will-stop-eu-gas-sales-if-fined-under-due-diligence-law-ft-2024-12-22/

Shecorns88 said:

kinabalu said:

Fishing said:

Dopermean said:

SandyRentool said:

If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.

Eh? 2 was created by IR35 which was introduced by Gordon Brown in 2000.

It was an incompetent technocratic fix that showed no understanding of how business works, was designed to solve a largely non-existent problem and caused far more damage than it solved.

Typical fucking Labour. Typical fucking Brown.

Hmm, I think there was at least something of a problem. I was working in the City back then and you'd get these guys (typically in IT but not always) who'd be working at a bank, sat there at the same desk for years, Mon to Fri, 9 to 5, employees basically, but instead of being on the payroll they'd be "limited companies" collecting their salary as fees and paying themselves in dividends out of "profits" having knocked off a ton of expenses such as travel and lunch and clothes and pretty much anything else you could think of. A bit of a scam basically.

I can 100% relate to this.

I was a Bank employee at the time and would sit in Meetings (on a nice solid salary and package) and listen to the IR35 Consultants you describe spouting basically bullcrap and not adding much that salaried staff could not do.

The difference is they would be on anything from £1000 a day for a Business Analyst, a glorified admin assistant to mid range £4000 a day for someone reasonably competent....

In 2003 i took a nice redundancy package and joined th gravy train for 5 years. I made a buck out of Basle 2 Compliance with one juicy contract for ABN Amro earning 5k a day!

ABN Amro in the noughties? Our paths might have crossed. Better leave it there!

Yes, freelance is appropriate if the person is doing short assignments and has multiple clients, but very often in the City it was more of a tax dodge for what were quasi employees.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

SandyRentool said:

If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.

Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.

Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.

Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.

80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.

Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.

Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD

This Labour-voting OAP isn't 'infuriated' by the WFA cut. Admittedly, as a first stage it should have been taxable but it had to go.
Admittedly I voted Labour mainly because I thought the Labour candidate was more likely to beat the local Tory than any of the other local candidates.
I'm disappointed so far with Labour but when I I think of the shambles that was the Government from 2019 onwards......

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

SandyRentool said:

If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.

Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.

Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.

Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.

80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.

Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.

Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD

The polling doesn't support that claim.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.

So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.

Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well

There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.

There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.

MarqueeMark said:

Zelensky reporting that of the 12,000 or so North Korean troops sent to Ukraine, 3,000 are already dead or injured.

So a better survival rate than if they'd stayed in North Korea.

Offtopic but it’s Christmas, here’s Eddie Hearn in the US last month trying to sell the idea of darts to Americans. Interview with Patrick Bet-David, where he says that Matchroom’s darts operation is now twice as big as their boxing operation by revenue and profit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W5fKtcqd-w

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.

So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.

Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well

There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.

There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.

All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits.
They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Cookie said:

Roger said:

This could be a reaction to what Reeves might have done in her budget or it might be a reaction to what is likely to happen in the US with Trump or it could just be a bunch of whingeing directors predicting doom as they often do

The only certainty is that if she want's to instantly turn the graph around all they need to do is announce that the UK are starting talks to fully rejoin the EU thus addiing an estimated 4-5% to our GDP.

......and also making the UK a much more cheerful place.

Ooh, yes, more constitutional wrangling about Europe - that'll cheer people up. Worked brilliantly last time. Bound to be a recipe for harmony.

(I think you might be extrapolating from "Roger" to "people" here).

No it was from Newsnight a week or so ago. There didn't seem to be much argument about the 4-5% GDP. I thought it was pretty smart to have that figure embedded in most peoples consciousness available to be pulled out when appropriate. It all feels like a softening up exercise. What advertisers call 'a teaser campaign'

I have said this to you before

We cannot rejoin the EU without either a manifesto commitment or another referendum neither of which are possible before 2029

I support rejoining the single market and even freedom of movement whilst remaining outside the EU but even that would be near impossible in the short term

The other issue you do not seem to recognise is does the EU really want to recommence negotiations to rejoin, when the next UK government could want to leave and what shape will the EU be in post German and French elections ?

You mourn for something that is frankly years away

"Yearn" I think, BigG. The mourning has already happened. Me, you, Roger, all of us Remainers have done that bit now.

Sandpit said:

algarkirk said:

SandyRentool said:

We were talking about CO2 emissions from cement manufacturing the other day. I've just stumbled on this snippet:

The cement industry alone accounts for around 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a greater proportion than any single country in the world other than the US and China. A report by the World Economic Forum in September found that unless cement production becomes more sustainable, its emissions would more than double to 3.8bn t/y by the middle of the century.

A reminder that, despite all the global conferences CO2 emissions are rising not falling.

(And even when they fall, that just means the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is still occuring but a bit more slowly, it doesn't mean that CO2 levels get lower).

Perhaps the rest of us might take the global conferences a little more seriously when they’re sponsored by Webex and Teams, and not an excuse for flying hundreds of planes half way around the world.

Either you believe face to face meetings are more effective for reaching agreement than Teams meetings, or you don’t. Even if flying delegations to a conference got one more tiny country on board with a limited emissions target than a teams meeting, it would pay back the meeting emissions many thousands of times over.

Though I’ve no doubt the same Telegraph editorial team who run stories about face to face climate conferences being a waste of time are churning out stories about lazy skivers working from home and devastating the London commercial property market.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Cookie said:

Roger said:

This could be a reaction to what Reeves might have done in her budget or it might be a reaction to what is likely to happen in the US with Trump or it could just be a bunch of whingeing directors predicting doom as they often do

The only certainty is that if she want's to instantly turn the graph around all they need to do is announce that the UK are starting talks to fully rejoin the EU thus addiing an estimated 4-5% to our GDP.

......and also making the UK a much more cheerful place.

Ooh, yes, more constitutional wrangling about Europe - that'll cheer people up. Worked brilliantly last time. Bound to be a recipe for harmony.

(I think you might be extrapolating from "Roger" to "people" here).

No it was from Newsnight a week or so ago. There didn't seem to be much argument about the 4-5% GDP. I thought it was pretty smart to have that figure embedded in most peoples consciousness available to be pulled out when appropriate. It all feels like a softening up exercise. What advertisers call 'a teaser campaign'

I have said this to you before

We cannot rejoin the EU without either a manifesto commitment or another referendum neither of which are possible before 2029

I support rejoining the single market and even freedom of movement whilst remaining outside the EU but even that would be near impossible in the short term

The other issue you do not seem to recognise is does the EU really want to recommence negotiations to rejoin, when the next UK government could want to leave and what shape will the EU be in post German and French elections ?

You mourn for something that is frankly years away

Bit like a Tory government.

You may find it is something worse !!!!

Not what the polling is showing so far.

However "meh" Starmer's government is, however much it's got wrong, it's still mostly polling above the alternative.

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.

So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.

Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well

There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.

There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.

As I said below, we should also scrap NI credits, income tax is a tax not an insurance so that defeats the point of contributory welfare as well as being near impossible to calculate given how much income tax funds compared to ringfenced NI

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Cookie said:

Roger said:

This could be a reaction to what Reeves might have done in her budget or it might be a reaction to what is likely to happen in the US with Trump or it could just be a bunch of whingeing directors predicting doom as they often do

The only certainty is that if she want's to instantly turn the graph around all they need to do is announce that the UK are starting talks to fully rejoin the EU thus addiing an estimated 4-5% to our GDP.

......and also making the UK a much more cheerful place.

Ooh, yes, more constitutional wrangling about Europe - that'll cheer people up. Worked brilliantly last time. Bound to be a recipe for harmony.

(I think you might be extrapolating from "Roger" to "people" here).

No it was from Newsnight a week or so ago. There didn't seem to be much argument about the 4-5% GDP. I thought it was pretty smart to have that figure embedded in most peoples consciousness available to be pulled out when appropriate. It all feels like a softening up exercise. What advertisers call 'a teaser campaign'

I have said this to you before

We cannot rejoin the EU without either a manifesto commitment or another referendum neither of which are possible before 2029

I support rejoining the single market and even freedom of movement whilst remaining outside the EU but even that would be near impossible in the short term

The other issue you do not seem to recognise is does the EU really want to recommence negotiations to rejoin, when the next UK government could want to leave and what shape will the EU be in post German and French elections ?

You mourn for something that is frankly years away

People arguing for something that is probably years away? Isn't that how politics and humanity is supposed to work?

Part of the problem that all governments face is that society has come to expect instant improvement. You can't get a better world delivered by Amazon Prime.

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

We were talking about CO2 emissions from cement manufacturing the other day. I've just stumbled on this snippet:

The cement industry alone accounts for around 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a greater proportion than any single country in the world other than the US and China. A report by the World Economic Forum in September found that unless cement production becomes more sustainable, its emissions would more than double to 3.8bn t/y by the middle of the century.

Well under 2% of UK emissions, though.

And no one is going to relocate their cement production here just for our carbon capture boondoggle.

English counties have reduced their carbon footprint since 2006 by an average of 46%. Derbyshire, due to minerals extraction and cement manufacturing has managed a 26% reduction. The worst nationally.

IIRC, I’ll not be more than a percent wrong.

That 2% footprint is in one place. The business involved is currently under maintained, schedules paired to the bone. Likely to need large investment soon.

IMO Labour have been mugged to support a multi billion CCS plan. With nothing obvious to spend the money on I suspect they will fall into a cement manufacturing quagmire of missed targets, failed ventures, and wasted billions.

It’s horrible to watch.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

algarkirk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.

I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.

So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.

Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well

There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.

There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.

As I said below, we should also scrap NI credits, income tax is a tax not an insurance so that defeats the point of contributory welfare as well as being near impossible to calculate given how much income tax funds compared to ringfenced NI

National insurance is not an insurance either, its a tax.

People have a lifetime of NI credits. Just set contributions based on income tax, problem solved.

TimS said:

Sandpit said:

algarkirk said:

SandyRentool said:

We were talking about CO2 emissions from cement manufacturing the other day. I've just stumbled on this snippet:

The cement industry alone accounts for around 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a greater proportion than any single country in the world other than the US and China. A report by the World Economic Forum in September found that unless cement production becomes more sustainable, its emissions would more than double to 3.8bn t/y by the middle of the century.

A reminder that, despite all the global conferences CO2 emissions are rising not falling.

(And even when they fall, that just means the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is still occuring but a bit more slowly, it doesn't mean that CO2 levels get lower).

Perhaps the rest of us might take the global conferences a little more seriously when they’re sponsored by Webex and Teams, and not an excuse for flying hundreds of planes half way around the world.

Either you believe face to face meetings are more effective for reaching agreement than Teams meetings, or you don’t. Even if flying delegations to a conference got one more tiny country on board with a limited emissions target than a teams meeting, it would pay back the meeting emissions many thousands of times over.

Though I’ve no doubt the same Telegraph editorial team who run stories about face to face climate conferences being a waste of time are churning out stories about lazy skivers working from home and devastating the London commercial property market.

I think that the climate conferences specifically, should be example models of exactly how teleconferencing can be made to work effectively. Anyone who wants to reduce carbon emissions should be all in favour of encouraging remote working whenever possible.

Of course newspapers hate WFH, because people won’t be spending an hour or two on the train every day reading the newspaper. To add that half the government are WFH at a time when the service they’re providing is seen as generally crap. Incentivise WFH opportunities to the performance of yourself and your team.

ohnotnow said:

This bodes well...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx27yx1y0deo

Protests erupt in Syria over Christmas tree burning

Protests have broken out in Syria over the burning of a Christmas tree near the city of Hama.

A video posted on social media showed masked gunmen setting fire to the tree on display in the main square of the Suqaylabiyah, a Christian-majority town in central Syria.

The main Islamist faction which led the uprising that toppled President Bashar al-Assad said the men responsible for the arson were foreign fighters and had been detained and that the tree would be swiftly repaired.

There's bound to be unrest. The question is can and will the new regime deal with it without plumbing the depths of depravity? If so there'll be a strong case for it being considered an improvement on the old one.

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Cookie said:

Roger said:

This could be a reaction to what Reeves might have done in her budget or it might be a reaction to what is likely to happen in the US with Trump or it could just be a bunch of whingeing directors predicting doom as they often do

The only certainty is that if she want's to instantly turn the graph around all they need to do is announce that the UK are starting talks to fully rejoin the EU thus addiing an estimated 4-5% to our GDP.

......and also making the UK a much more cheerful place.

Ooh, yes, more constitutional wrangling about Europe - that'll cheer people up. Worked brilliantly last time. Bound to be a recipe for harmony.

(I think you might be extrapolating from "Roger" to "people" here).

No it was from Newsnight a week or so ago. There didn't seem to be much argument about the 4-5% GDP. I thought it was pretty smart to have that figure embedded in most peoples consciousness available to be pulled out when appropriate. It all feels like a softening up exercise. What advertisers call 'a teaser campaign'

I have said this to you before

We cannot rejoin the EU without either a manifesto commitment or another referendum neither of which are possible before 2029

I support rejoining the single market and even freedom of movement whilst remaining outside the EU but even that would be near impossible in the short term

The other issue you do not seem to recognise is does the EU really want to recommence negotiations to rejoin, when the next UK government could want to leave and what shape will the EU be in post German and French elections ?

You mourn for something that is frankly years away

"Yearn" I think, BigG. The mourning has already happened. Me, you, Roger, all of us Remainers have done that bit now.

I did vote remain but accepted the verdict

Many were and are upset, but Brexit has happened and no amount of mourning for the old days will see it return as it was then

We may sensibly rejoin the single market someday, but as time passes and other markets open and develop it will not be a simple matter nor would I suggest any government wants to get into years of constitutional wrangle

Everything can be improved of course, and to be fair to Sunak and Starmer they both were and are seekng better cooperation in Europe which is a good thing

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

SandyRentool said:

Might be of interest to some:

"COMMERCIAL nuclear fusion moved a step closer after a US company announced plans to build a plant that will deliver electricity to the grid by early next decade.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) claims to be the world’s first company to develop plans to build a grid-scale fusion plant. The generator will be built in Chesterfield County, Virginia...

CFS says their reactor, known as ARC, will generate around 400 MW of electricity for the grid... The company expects to generate at this capacity by the early 2030s."

Either a huge breakthrough, or else more power could be generated by simply burning the cash that will be invested.

Edit: "To date, it has raised over US$2bn, which includes major backing from Italian oil giant Eni."

Have done a PhD on the magnetic confinement of fusion plasma, I'd bet my house on the latter.

Feeling a Pinch?

Tokamaks in my case, but I don't think Z-pinch devices hold out any more immediate promise. The thing is, we know that magnetic confinement fusion works in theory and can be demonstrated in experimental devices, but the engineering challenges of building an actual continuously operating fusion power plant are utterly daunting. Plasma edge instabilities, refuelling and exhaust, tritium breeding and material embrittlement are just a few examples of the unsolved problems that need to be resolved for a commercial device. And then, as Stuartinromford mentions, it has to successfully compete with wind, solar and batteries.

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Dopermean said:

SandyRentool said:

If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.

Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.

Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.

Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.

80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.

Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.

Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD

The polling doesn't support that claim.

Yes it does, hence Labour's poll collapse since July

No, it doesn't.

Labour only polled 20% of over 70s in July anyway.

The polling collapse is because they've lost working age voters who were supporting them, not just pensioners pissed off about WFA.

In part that's because pensioners have incredibly good PR- personally, I blame St Winifred's school choir.

For example, pretty much everyone here thinks that the government were right to turn down the WASPI claims, but

As an aside, the government’s refusal to compensate WASPI women sparked significant public disapproval, with 48% considering the decision wrong. Even 46% of Labour supporters shared this view.

https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/opinium-voting-intention-18th-december-2024/

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

Offtopic but it’s Christmas, here’s Eddie Hearn in the US last month trying to sell the idea of darts to Americans. Interview with Patrick Bet-David, where he says that Matchroom’s darts operation is now twice as big as their boxing operation by revenue and profit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W5fKtcqd-w

There is a youngish chap on the YouTubes / newsletter that specializes in the business of sport. He put out a video about 3 weeks ago looking at everything Matchroom and identified that the Darts is now the big money earner...and....the current Sky tv contract comes up for renewal shortly. Now Eddie has this relationship with DAZN for the boxing and overseas rights for the darts is already with DAZN, at the very least he will be making Sky dig a lot deeper into their pockets for the rights, but perhaps he might even get a bumper deal from DAZN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEYmJGILpYc

Last year’s darts final was apparently the highest audience Sky has ever had for something that wasn’t a football match, it was up there with the top Olympic events (that were on BBC) in the year’s ratings, around 9m watched it. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out with the international rights.