Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The day the Europe and world changed – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,329

    But if it happens it has been wrought by Hamas, Fatah and the PLO and their actions over decades.

    Pre-1967 the Palestinians lived in Egypt and Jordan, their returning to Egypt and Jordan albeit in their current borders might be a solution to end eternal conflict.

    And for all the talk about how collective punishment is not justified, its happened many times before, including for example Germans being kicked out of areas they were no longer welcome in post-WWII.
    So, you've gone back to supporting ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. What credo can support such a position? You cannot believe in property rights, in the rule of law, in individual liberty. Why is it fine to throw all those away when it's the Palestinians?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    malcolmg said:

    Utter bollox, there speaks a quisling shit scared cowardly arse.
    You're holding back a bit there Malc... he's much worse than that.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,111

    Hang on, wasn't Farage telling us just last year that the West goaded Russia into war by not ruling out Ukraine NATO membership?
    4d draughts. Or checkers as the Trump might say.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    MaxPB said:

    Cancel the PIP, reign in "disability" benefit for minor mental health issues like anxiety and non-clinical depression, cut the triple lock, and taper the state pension for higher rate tax payers at a rate of 20% starting at £50k, so £1 of state pension withdrawal for every £5 in income over £50k. I think that will raise £30bn and more.
    Non-clinical depression doesn't count anyway by definition so you've lost a goiod chunk of your assumption right there.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,011

    You're holding back a bit there Malc... he's much worse than that.

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    37m
    Trump’s Defence Secretary: “Just to be clear, you lot aren’t our priority any more”

    Trump’s British supporters: “Isn’t Trump great!!!”,
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 5,173
    edited February 12
    AnneJGP said:

    The triple lock should have gone immediately. Pick one measure as comparator and go with it.
    You'll get no argument from me on that specific point, but that ship has already sailed. The one remote chance that this Government had of scrapping it without self-combusting was at the very outset, where they could've attempted to reason with the public that the nation was in an even worse mess than they realised and that the guarantee was simply unaffordable. Instead they left it untouched and did the same thing that any other likely alternative would've done, which is to raid earned incomes to pay for it (on this occasion, via National Insurance.) And once all that money's gone there'll be another raid on wages. And another. And another.

    The notion of any of this changing under any likely future administration - save in the event of a strike by Britain's creditors - is nil.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,480
    We are putting the renewables industry on notice. Reform UK will:

    ✅ Scrap net zero & recover environmental subsidies via a windfall tax.

    ✅ Ban the dangerous battery energy storage systems.

    ✅ Force new pylon cables to go underground.

    https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1889731568425390182
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    Carnyx said:

    Non-clinical depression doesn't count anyway by definition so you've lost a goiod chunk of your assumption right there.
    People are getting signed off for it though and receiving sickness benefits.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,005

    I wonder if the whole Musk thing affected Farage more than anyone realized and it messed with his head in quite a serious way.
    He's recognised it's a weakness and is moving to hive it off? The British public are very pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin and knows that being seen as a quisling is the one thing that can hurt him with a certain kind of voter who likes Reform on other issues.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,992

    So are we going to close down their bases and kick out their multinationals?
    If UK grows a pair but more likely to be butt kissing
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,261
    Farage isn’t stupid. If he wants to win the next election he’s got to strike a delicate balance. I think people have more of an affinity for Ukraine here than the US does.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,993
    pigeon said:

    The UK defence budget as a percentage of GDP could be brought up to parity with that of the United States with an immediate increase of about £30bn. This is about 10% of the estimated total social security spend for this financial year, so on the face of it that sounds doable.

    Now, you, as a hypothetical new Work and Pensions Secretary, have got to decide who to impoverish. You can't get out of this by making the usual claims about clamping down on fraud, because Government has always been pitiful at dealing with the problem and in any case total losses to benefit fraud are estimated at about £7.5bn. So most of it is going to have to be swiped off genuine claimants, and it's not going to take long before you have to make some very nasty decisions. You could raise the whole sum by abolishing housing benefit, but then everyone who relies on it to afford their exorbitant rents ends up out on the streets (except for families with children, who all end up being housed by councils which promptly become insolvent.)

    Abolishing child benefit would raise about £13bn, but the nation's parents will despise you and the poorer ones will also be turning off the central heating or feeding the kids cheap bread and jam for dinner. You could decide that Universal Credit claimants are all just scroungers really and scrap that, which would earn you over £50bn but cut so many people off at the knees, working poor as well as unemployed, that you'd probably trigger civil unrest. Most of the rest of the benefits bill goes on pensioners and the disabled.

    On top of that, if you're going to preserve your headroom for future increases in defence spending to at least keep pace with inflation, then you're presumably going to want to prevent runaway increases in future social security from swallowing up your revenues. In that instance, the big ticket item is elderly benefits, which already account for 55% of all social security expenditure, primarily on our old friend the triple locked state pension. If you're serious about this then the triple lock is going to have to go, and go immediately. Can you imagine the screaming?

    Restoring the increasingly dire public finances through the convenient medium of slashing benefits is an old favourite of political rhetoric, but once you spend five minutes thinking about the options you quickly realise why it is that politicians struggle to do it. Any serious effort would produce millions of victims, risk causing significant social problems, and probably get the administration responsible the order of the boot at the next election.
    If you slash child benefit, then even fewer kids will be born, and you worsen public finances significantly in the future.

    Fundamentally, the problem is too many oldies.

    I think we need to be radical: ultimately assisted dying should be available to all after the age of (say) 70. And we should include financial incentives to people to take advantage of a way to leave this earth in a clean and pain free way: no wasting away in pain with cancer, no worrying about the heating bills, etc.

    We could easily save £30bn from the welfare, pensions and NHS bill if people could simply hang around a little less. My back of the envelope calculation is that for every six months we reduce life expectancy -assuming it is concentrated among the oldest- the government would save around £12bn.

    Of course, none of this would be compulsory (we all like our older posters on here). But there are many people who -given the right incentives- might choose to pull the plug a little earlier than otherwise.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,808
    rcs1000 said:

    Yes.

    Still, a sinner repented, and all that.
    There are lots of moving part in play, and Farage's influence of course over Ukraine is precisely nil. But, while I may be wrong as things change so fast, if Farage is serious about participation in UK government or even Reform being a serious presence in parliament, he needs to be clearly distanced from Trumpism as it is now becoming, with great speed.

    We may have to live with an authoritarian semi fascist USA - we shall see - but there is no evidence that even quite rightish voters in the UK have any fondness for the real article.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    pigeon said:

    The UK defence budget as a percentage of GDP could be brought up to parity with that of the United States with an immediate increase of about £30bn. This is about 10% of the estimated total social security spend for this financial year, so on the face of it that sounds doable.

    Now, you, as a hypothetical new Work and Pensions Secretary, have got to decide who to impoverish. You can't get out of this by making the usual claims about clamping down on fraud, because Government has always been pitiful at dealing with the problem and in any case total losses to benefit fraud are estimated at about £7.5bn. So most of it is going to have to be swiped off genuine claimants, and it's not going to take long before you have to make some very nasty decisions. You could raise the whole sum by abolishing housing benefit, but then everyone who relies on it to afford their exorbitant rents ends up out on the streets (except for families with children, who all end up being housed by councils which promptly become insolvent.)

    Abolishing child benefit would raise about £13bn, but the nation's parents will despise you and the poorer ones will also be turning off the central heating or feeding the kids cheap bread and jam for dinner. You could decide that Universal Credit claimants are all just scroungers really and scrap that, which would earn you over £50bn but cut so many people off at the knees, working poor as well as unemployed, that you'd probably trigger civil unrest. Most of the rest of the benefits bill goes on pensioners and the disabled.

    On top of that, if you're going to preserve your headroom for future increases in defence spending to at least keep pace with inflation, then you're presumably going to want to prevent runaway increases in future social security from swallowing up your revenues. In that instance, the big ticket item is elderly benefits, which already account for 55% of all social security expenditure, primarily on our old friend the triple locked state pension. If you're serious about this then the triple lock is going to have to go, and go immediately. Can you imagine the screaming?

    Restoring the increasingly dire public finances through the convenient medium of slashing benefits is an old favourite of political rhetoric, but once you spend five minutes thinking about the options you quickly realise why it is that politicians struggle to do it. Any serious effort would produce millions of victims, risk causing significant social problems, and probably get the administration responsible the order of the boot at the next election.
    Well said.

    The other issue with cutting benefits is that it immediately causes a recession because every penny of UC is pumped straight back into the economy. State pensions: not so much.

    However, the answer is:
    - Apply NI to all earnings, including pensions and investment income
    - 0.5% Wealth Tax
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,131
    edited February 12
    Everton can't catch a break....

    A front-of-shirt sponsor of Everton football club is giving up its licence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5y9ggqpqdo

    On the other hand, the slapper who does the pron videos, she has an amazing PR/marketing team. Even the BBC can't help but mention her on a regular basis.
  • So, you've gone back to supporting ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. What credo can support such a position? You cannot believe in property rights, in the rule of law, in individual liberty. Why is it fine to throw all those away when it's the Palestinians?
    I don't support it, but if Hamas won't lay down their arms and surrender, it might be the least worst option.

    My preferred option is an unconditional Hamas surrender and peace can occur, but if that won't happen then war is hell and war leads to sup-optimal results sometimes.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    edited February 12
    algarkirk said:

    There are lots of moving part in play, and Farage's influence of course over Ukraine is precisely nil. But, while I may be wrong as things change so fast, if Farage is serious about participation in UK government or even Reform being a serious presence in parliament, he needs to be clearly distanced from Trumpism as it is now becoming, with great speed.

    We may have to live with an authoritarian semi fascist USA - we shall see - but there is no evidence that even quite rightish voters in the UK have any fondness for the real article.
    Except Leon, LuckyGuy and WilliamGlenn. So that's a fair proportion of Rightists if PB is representative (which it's not ofc).
  • No alcohol will be allowed at the 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia, says the country's ambassador to the United Kingdom. In an interview on LBC, Prince Khalid bin Bandar Al Saud said alcohol would not be sold anywhere during the tournament, including hotels.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czj3z10kzjzo
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,993
    HYUFD said:

    We are putting the renewables industry on notice. Reform UK will:

    ✅ Scrap net zero & recover environmental subsidies via a windfall tax.

    ✅ Ban the dangerous battery energy storage systems.

    ✅ Force new pylon cables to go underground.

    https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1889731568425390182

    I have no issue with scrapping net zero.

    However items two and three are fundamentally dumb.

    Battery storage systems are no more dangerous than any other system of concentrated energy storage. Ultimately, if you store a lot of energy in one place, then there are risks associated with that: and that's true whether your energy is battery or hydrocarbons or uranium (or even water). If you want to impose additional safety restrictions, go for it. But banning battery storage (which can only reduce energy bills) on the basis they are "dangerous" is (sorry to repeat myself) dumb beyond belief.

    I'm not even going to comment on the last one: it's simply an attempt to price wind out the market because... because... Just dumb.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,472
    malcolmg said:

    Utter bollox, there speaks a quisling shit scared cowardly arse.
    Leon doesn’t spend long enough at home to care which country he is in.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,131
    edited February 12
    Labour’s long-awaited industrial strategy will not now be published until June, while ministers will bring forward plans for individual sectors in a bid to show they are working to kickstart growth, it has emerged.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/12/labour-postpones-long-awaited-industrial-strategy

    They didn't do any homework prior to government did they. That Ming Vase they were worried about breaking was empty.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    rcs1000 said:

    If you slash child benefit, then even fewer kids will be born, and you worsen public finances significantly in the future.

    Fundamentally, the problem is too many oldies.

    I think we need to be radical: ultimately assisted dying should be available to all after the age of (say) 70. And we should include financial incentives to people to take advantage of a way to leave this earth in a clean and pain free way: no wasting away in pain with cancer, no worrying about the heating bills, etc.

    We could easily save £30bn from the welfare, pensions and NHS bill if people could simply hang around a little less. My back of the envelope calculation is that for every six months we reduce life expectancy -assuming it is concentrated among the oldest- the government would save around £12bn.

    Of course, none of this would be compulsory (we all like our older posters on here). But there are many people who -given the right incentives- might choose to pull the plug a little earlier than otherwise.
    Jeez, that's a nasty suggestion. It's tough enough being old as it is, without having to endure the thought of eyebrows being raised as to why you haven't done the decent thing and 'opted out'.

    Why don't we adopt Carnegie's philosophy: “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced” and just let the state take all the wealth an individual hasn't disposed of in her or her life.

    Inheritance is a cancer on society - it feeds the 'something for nothing' society.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,310
    rcs1000 said:

    If you slash child benefit, then even fewer kids will be born, and you worsen public finances significantly in the future.

    Fundamentally, the problem is too many oldies.

    I think we need to be radical: ultimately assisted dying should be available to all after the age of (say) 70. And we should include financial incentives to people to take advantage of a way to leave this earth in a clean and pain free way: no wasting away in pain with cancer, no worrying about the heating bills, etc.

    We could easily save £30bn from the welfare, pensions and NHS bill if people could simply hang around a little less. My back of the envelope calculation is that for every six months we reduce life expectancy -assuming it is concentrated among the oldest- the government would save around £12bn.

    Of course, none of this would be compulsory (we all like our older posters on here). But there are many people who -given the right incentives- might choose to pull the plug a little earlier than otherwise.
    That option might also change behaviour in counterproductive ways. Why not run up massive debt having a good time before you take the pill?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,537
    Back to the Leon challenge re Trump - if you think he's that bad why wouldn't you consider someone assassinating him, and my fatalist reply 'by the time you know he's THAT bad (not yet with his mandate to be pretty bloody terrible), it'll be too late'. You would just have to hope the love of lost democracy is strong enough in the US that things would eventually turn.

    Any lover of US democracy should stay their hand for a good time yet.

    I cannot, of course, speak for lovers of Ukrainian democracy.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,329

    I don't support it, but if Hamas won't lay down their arms and surrender, it might be the least worst option.

    My preferred option is an unconditional Hamas surrender and peace can occur, but if that won't happen then war is hell and war leads to sup-optimal results sometimes.
    There have been hundreds of wars in history. We didn't need ethnic cleansing to end 99% of them. Why on earth would it be the "least worst option" here?

    Hamas can be defeated militarily, if necessary. But what is threatening the current ceasefire is Trump and Netanyahu's talk of ethnic cleansing. What about we make it clear that ethnic cleansing is not an option? That shouldn't be a difficult statement for any country to make. No-one should be promoting it. How is this a difficult idea?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,329
    rcs1000 said:

    If you slash child benefit, then even fewer kids will be born, and you worsen public finances significantly in the future.

    Fundamentally, the problem is too many oldies.

    I think we need to be radical: ultimately assisted dying should be available to all after the age of (say) 70. And we should include financial incentives to people to take advantage of a way to leave this earth in a clean and pain free way: no wasting away in pain with cancer, no worrying about the heating bills, etc.

    We could easily save £30bn from the welfare, pensions and NHS bill if people could simply hang around a little less. My back of the envelope calculation is that for every six months we reduce life expectancy -assuming it is concentrated among the oldest- the government would save around £12bn.

    Of course, none of this would be compulsory (we all like our older posters on here). But there are many people who -given the right incentives- might choose to pull the plug a little earlier than otherwise.
    There are too many “useless eaters.”
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,993
    AnneJGP said:

    That option might also change behaviour in counterproductive ways. Why not run up massive debt having a good time before you take the pill?
    That's fine: lender beware and all that.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,413
    ...
    MJW said:

    Their basic problem is that they want the rhetoric on a drastic cut to immigration (it will fall somewhat under Lab anyway) without the costs. Reform can promise the world safe in the knowledge that a) are the insurgents so can go a bit out there on stuff without so much scrutiny b) If they did get in it would be their main (only?) priority so would be willing to bear the costs of changing our economic and social model to do without migration.

    The Tories? They want to have their cake and eat it, as ever.
    It is now widely acknowledged that migration is a net drain on the exchequer. The precise level of that drain varies from estimate to estimate, but it follows that a significant reduction, especially in low skilled migrants with poor english, would be a net boost to the economy.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,482
    Lots of Lolz at Goodison Park.
  • All kicking off at Goodison

    Last minute equaliser by Everton
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,329

    ...

    It is now widely acknowledged that migration is a net drain on the exchequer. The precise level of that drain varies from estimate to estimate, but it follows that a significant reduction, especially in low skilled migrants with poor english, would be a net boost to the economy.
    It is not now widely acknowledged that migration is a net drain on the exchequer.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,332
    rcs1000 said:

    If you slash child benefit, then even fewer kids will be born, and you worsen public finances significantly in the future.

    Fundamentally, the problem is too many oldies.

    I think we need to be radical: ultimately assisted dying should be available to all after the age of (say) 70. And we should include financial incentives to people to take advantage of a way to leave this earth in a clean and pain free way: no wasting away in pain with cancer, no worrying about the heating bills, etc.

    We could easily save £30bn from the welfare, pensions and NHS bill if people could simply hang around a little less. My back of the envelope calculation is that for every six months we reduce life expectancy -assuming it is concentrated among the oldest- the government would save around £12bn.

    Of course, none of this would be compulsory (we all like our older posters on here). But there are many people who -given the right incentives- might choose to pull the plug a little earlier than otherwise.
    What's your calculation for convicts and illegals? Both are groups worth far less than nice old granny who helps with the childcare.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    edited February 12
    MaxPB said:

    Cancel the PIP, reign in "disability" benefit for minor mental health issues like anxiety and non-clinical depression, cut the triple lock, and taper the state pension for higher rate tax payers at a rate of 20% starting at £50k, so £1 of state pension withdrawal for every £5 in income over £50k. I think that will raise £30bn and more.
    If you 'cancel the PIP' there would be no point in reigning (sic) in "disability" benefit for minor mental health issues like anxiety and non-clinical depression, just saying.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,866
    Scenes at Goodison!
    Can't catch a break?
    It's like watching Everton again!
    David Moyes is a football genius.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,482
    A red card for an aggressive handshake is a new one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,993

    It is not now widely acknowledged that migration is a net drain on the exchequer.
    It is now widely acknowledged that if you start any proposition with the words "it is now widely acknowledged" then everyone is required to accept your premise.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,993
    Foss said:

    What's your calculation for convicts and illegals? Both are groups worth far less than nice old granny who helps with the childcare.
    They are welcome to take the pill too.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,413
    edited February 12
    GIN1138 said:

    That, and Boris getting a seat in at the inauguration while Nigel was left in the cold.

    He surely understands now that Donald was playing him all along?
    Do we actually have any evidence that Nigel Farage was in any way snubbed during the inauguration, other than the unmistakable sillhouette of the Boris Barnet somewhere in the cheap seats? It seems a hell of a reach on the basis of no actual information.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,413

    Yeh, but now he's seen the focus groups on how his Trump love goes down in UK outside the most hard core Reform/UKIP types.
    Actually, Trump's popularity in the UK is rising.
  • Unbelievable scenes at Goodison Park but quite possibly what Goodison deserves to say goodbye, lol.

    Unbelievable too that after over 130 years of history it's ended at 41 apiece, all square on the fay, all square in the history books.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,288
    .

    You think it could be the making of him?
    Farage whilst a basically untrustworthy person isn't actually stupid. In fact when compared to Trump Farage looks like a genius. So it's possible that Farage has twigged that being too closely associated with Trump, who appears to have decided that democracy was what thwarted his barmy plans in the previous Presidency, might not be a good thing for his own ambitions.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    rcs1000 said:

    That's fine: lender beware and all that.
    Ok, so now nobody over 60 is getting a loan either in your brave new world.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155

    It is not now widely acknowledged that migration is a net drain on the exchequer.
    Lucky widely acknowledges it, and that's enough for him.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,866

    Unbelievable scenes at Goodison Park but quite possibly what Goodison deserves to say goodbye, lol.

    Unbelievable too that after over 130 years of history it's ended at 41 apiece, all square on the fay, all square in the history books.

    We're 3-0 up on building stadiums...
    Anyways. 3 sent off after full time. Doucore, Jones and Slot.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    MaxPB said:

    People are getting signed off for it though and receiving sickness benefits.
    If it's that bad then it's clinical by definition, and certainly by pretty rough practice given the nature of DWP, certainly after the first few months. Unless you are a psychiatrist as well as a financier and know better?

    Helpful hint: what you read in the DT doesn't count.
  • There have been hundreds of wars in history. We didn't need ethnic cleansing to end 99% of them. Why on earth would it be the "least worst option" here?

    Hamas can be defeated militarily, if necessary. But what is threatening the current ceasefire is Trump and Netanyahu's talk of ethnic cleansing. What about we make it clear that ethnic cleansing is not an option? That shouldn't be a difficult statement for any country to make. No-one should be promoting it. How is this a difficult idea?
    Ethnic cleansing has ended a lot of conflicts. War in Europe in the 40s ended with a lot of it happening.

    If Hamas want to lay down their arms and surrender then I'd be delighted, but if they don't then Israel should take the gloves off and do whatever it takes to destroy them.

    Anyone who wants to seek refuge away from the conflict should be able to do so in a neighbouring state, that's what refugee status exists for.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    Carnyx said:

    If it's that bad then it's clinical by definition, and certainly by pretty rough practice given the nature of DWP, certainly after the first few months. Unless you are a psychiatrist as well as a financier and know better?

    Helpful hint: what you read in the DT doesn't count.
    Correct. Very hard to get PIP on mental grounds these days (severe learning disability excepted). And DWP review such cases every 3-4 years then routine cancel PIP and await a Tribunal appeal... which quite obviously most people with severe anxiety/depression cannot face.

    Maybe it was easier in the past, but not now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,011
    Carnyx said:

    If it's that bad then it's clinical by definition, and certainly by pretty rough practice given the nature of DWP, certainly after the first few months. Unless you are a psychiatrist as well as a financier and know better?

    Helpful hint: what you read in the DT doesn't count.
    And also - you don't get PIP because you have condition X. Far from it. You get PIP if you get sufficient points for the things you cannot do in daily life because of X.

    "My GP says I have depression give me £5K a year" is a media myth.

  • And also - you don't get PIP because you have condition X. Far from it. You get PIP if you get sufficient points for the things you cannot do in daily life because of X.

    "My GP says I have depression give me £5K a year" is a media myth.

    And plenty of people do have PIPs who can do all those things, but are signed off saying they can't.

    Many of them work cash in hand as well as collecting their PIP.

    Saying that based on real life, no papers, and a great many people will know at least one person who is signed off on PIP that should not be, but is.
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 764

    And plenty of people do have PIPs who can do all those things, but are signed off saying they can't.

    Many of them work cash in hand as well as collecting their PIP.

    Saying that based on real life, no papers, and a great many people will know at least one person who is signed off on PIP that should not be, but is.
    PIP doesn't sign you off.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,866
    Pip is not an out of work benefit.
    You can work full time and receive it. Many do.
  • Monkeys said:

    PIP doesn't sign you off.
    I never said signed off as not working, I said they are signed off as unable to do things in life they can, which is a different matter.

    The problem is that some people do need it, while others are playing the system for fools and denying it is to deny reality.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    dixiedean said:

    Pip is not an out of work benefit.
    You can work full time and receive it. Many do.

    A nice easy to understand guide for some of us. In big letters and all.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6426d91cfbe620000c17da64/easy-read-get-help-from-personal-independence-payment.pdf
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,011

    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    4m
    I: Cabinet ministers at risk as Starmer plans reshuffle #TomorrowsPapersToday
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    I never said signed off as not working, I said they are signed off as unable to do things in life they can, which is a different matter.

    The problem is that some people do need it, while others are playing the system for fools and denying it is to deny reality.
    TBF what you said was also "Many of them work cash in hand as well as collecting their PIP."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,131
    edited February 12
    Failed asylum seeker can stay in UK – because she joined terror group

    The Nigerian woman, who was granted anonymity, submitted eight different appeals against a rejection of her right to remain in the UK. They ranged from claims under ECHR Article Eight, which guarantees a right to a family life, to assertions she was a victim of trafficking.

    They were all rejected over a 10-year period.

    In her ninth appeal, she claimed she faced persecution if she returned to Nigeria due to her membership of IPOB and her attendance at its protests, rallies and campaigns. She said protesters at the Nigerian high commission were photographed and potentially watched on CCTV.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/12/asylum-seeker-joined-terror-group-so-she-could-stay-in-uk/

    The headline is slightly misleading, but 9 appeals....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,993

    Do we actually have any evidence that Nigel Farage was in any way snubbed during the inauguration, other than the unmistakable sillhouette of the Boris Barnet somewhere in the cheap seats? It seems a hell of a reach on the basis of no actual information.
    Didn't Co-President Musk call for a new Reform leader?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,005

    ...

    It is now widely acknowledged that migration is a net drain on the exchequer. The precise level of that drain varies from estimate to estimate, but it follows that a significant reduction, especially in low skilled migrants with poor english, would be a net boost to the economy.
    Widely acknowledged by who? Not the treasury or OBR. Nor the University of Oxford's migration studies. Some types of immigration have a negative impact, so it depends to some extent how, why and where people are coming from. As it stands figures have it as a slight net positive - though one can accept it's not a huge boost to GDP - though certain changes to rules can increase that, e.g. banning dependents.


    The problem though lies in how it would disproportionately hit certain sectors. If you want lots of universities to go bust, or councils to get in even bigger debt funding social care in the short term, then that's what you're going for. Which is fine, perhaps we should ditch our current model as dysfunctional - but you then have to take the hit and politicians know that'll make you very unpopular.

    And the point is that let's say, for the sake of argument, you are right - the previous Tory government were *not* working to your assumption as their own spending plans assumed high migration numbers even as they made immigration a campaigning issue!


  • Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    4m
    I: Cabinet ministers at risk as Starmer plans reshuffle #TomorrowsPapersToday

    Rachel to be sent up North to a customer service role?
  • Ethnic cleansing has ended a lot of conflicts. War in Europe in the 40s ended with a lot of it happening.

    If Hamas want to lay down their arms and surrender then I'd be delighted, but if they don't then Israel should take the gloves off and do whatever it takes to destroy them.

    Anyone who wants to seek refuge away from the conflict should be able to do so in a neighbouring state, that's what refugee status exists for.
    The Palestinians are fighting, almost certainly in vain, for their very survival. There is nothing they can do to escape from subjugation or annihilation by the Israelis, so I guess they figure they may as well go down fighting. Much like the Native Americans to European settlers or the British Celts to the Romans.
  • Carnyx said:

    TBF what you said was also "Many of them work cash in hand as well as collecting their PIP."
    Yes, I know people who are doing that.

    Optimal solution if you want to game the system, as I've often said, is work 16 hours on the books, get benefits, and work cash in hand beyond that. If you can get PIP on top, even better.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,131
    edited February 12
    One thing Cameron got right was not carrying out reshuffles unless absolutely forced to do so. Blair was far too keen to move people around, and since Cameron its been a constant merry-go-round. You don't get anything done if you shift minsters every year as it takes time to understand the role, your team, make a plan.

    No successful business chops and changes senior management every year. Tim Apple, Nvidia, etc.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Didn't Co-President Musk call for a new Reform leader?
    Musk was walking back his rash commitment to pay $100 million to a party which has its own billionaire treasurer, and who couldn't spend it anyway.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,011
    The really stupid thing is that another year of war and there would have been a good chance that Russia's economy finally buckles and the aftershock may even have swept Putin from office.
  • The Palestinians are fighting, almost certainly in vain, for their very survival. There is nothing they can do to escape from subjugation or annihilation by the Israelis, so I guess they figure they may as well go down fighting. Much like the Native Americans to European settlers or the British Celts to the Romans.
    The Israelis are the ones fighting for their survival. If they don't stop Hamas, they will gladly kill every Jew "from the river to the sea". If Israel lays down its arms, they and the only Jewish state on the entire planet die.

    On the other hand if Hamas lays down it's arms, the fighting is over.

    If Hamas want to fight, I bloody well hope it is in vain and they are annihilated. You should 100% be calling for Hamas to surrender and stop fighting unconditionally.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,848
    ...
    malcolmg said:

    Correct David, we should tell Trump and the USA to F**k right off , chuck them out of NATO and build a proper NATO ready to give Putin the doing he deserves. Get rid of the surrender monkeys.
    PS: Stop buying their crap weapons and build our own across Europe. Poke the feckers right in the eye.
    Where will we build them?

    "Bathgate no more
    Linwood no more
    Methil no more
    Irvine no more"

    We're f*****! Your Mrs Thatcher sold our industrial base to America, Germany and China and they closed us down and moved all our means of engineering production to Mexico, Eastern Europe and the Far East. We haven't got the skillset, the equipment, the cash or the knowhow to build weapons grade anything anymore.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,288
    Nigelb said:

    The US is not our enemy.
    But under Trump it's utterly unreliable as an ally, and in some respects actively hostile to our interests.

    If anything the US under Trump is a bigger problem than our longer-term enemies because he is so unpredictable.

    So far we've seen Trump talking about seizing the Panama canal, taking over Greenland, incorporating Canada as the 51st state, designating cartels as terrorist groups to allow military intervention in Mexico, buying Gaza and expelling the Palestinians with no right to return, and many other extreme ideas within the US itself. In none of these cases does Trump seem to have discussed these ideas with the countries they apply to first, and the wishes of the governments and citizens do not appear to concern him at all. This is all completely unprecedented, and actions more like those of a rogue state with a crazed dictator leading it.

    So the US may not be the enemy of the UK today, but it wouldn't take much action along the lines that Trump has mooted to make the US a de facto adversary.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 2,005
    Nigelb said:

    The US is not our enemy.
    But under Trump it's utterly unreliable as an ally, and in some respects actively hostile to our interests.

    But nuance is necessary; the US is not just Trump. We cannot, and should not throw away a century of friendship.
    At least for now, anyway.


    I can just see us gradually drifting apart over time - a big reason it was rational to tie ourselves to America in many ways was because of the security guarantees it gave. If that no longer applies we will need to look elsewhere and the US might not be happy with the results.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,011

    Rachel to be sent up North to a customer service role?
    Sounds like Bridget actually.
  • The Israelis are the ones fighting for their survival. If they don't stop Hamas, they will gladly kill every Jew "from the river to the sea". If Israel lays down its arms, they and the only Jewish state on the entire planet die.

    On the other hand if Hamas lays down it's arms, the fighting is over.

    If Hamas want to fight, I bloody well hope it is in vain and they are annihilated. You should 100% be calling for Hamas to surrender and stop fighting unconditionally.
    You obviously haven't been watching the news lately. It's the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who are being threatened with ethnic cleansing after years of subjugation.
  • Sounds like Bridget actually.
    Are we sure Bridget can even manage customer service?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,827
    kle4 said:

    What does either of those things have to do with her actual words? You do appeal if you think the courts are wrong, and I'm sure the administration will. And even if she should be in jail for something that doesn't change the point either.
    Leon admires power.
    That's about it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,975
    edited February 12
    Did those steel and aluminium tariffs actually come about?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,131
    edited February 12

    The really stupid thing is that another year of war and there would have been a good chance that Russia's economy finally buckles and the aftershock may even have swept Putin from office.

    I don't think Ukraine can afford it either. In addition to running out of fit young men, it seems costs are now really starting to hurt.


    Apart from stopping the death and suffering, another benefit to ending the fighting in Ukraine is that it is increasingly unaffordable.

    Despite international help, the Ukrainian government has increased a range of taxes to help fund the fight against Russia. Last month brought an increase in the military levy that individuals pay on their wages; other tax increases have been imposed on alcohol, tobacco and banks.

    Despite the government estimating that the economy grew about 3.6% last year, it's still smaller than it was before the war started in 2022. And this year’s budget allocates more money than ever for defence & security, almost $54bn – which is about 26% of the entire economy. By comparison, Russia is forecast to spend about 6.7% of its GDP on defence.

    Russia’s attacks on energy infrastructure have led to rolling blackouts and made it hard for businesses to be productive and pay taxes. With inflation running at an annualised 12.9%, the economy is another major battle front for President Zelensky’s government to fight on.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g97971rwnt

  • No alcohol will be allowed at the 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia, says the country's ambassador to the United Kingdom. In an interview on LBC, Prince Khalid bin Bandar Al Saud said alcohol would not be sold anywhere during the tournament, including hotels.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czj3z10kzjzo

    "Yeah, man, but it's dry heat!"
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,848
    Nigelb said:

    Leon admires power.
    That's about it.
    Leon admires Leon.
    That's it!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,011

    Are we sure Bridget can even manage customer service?
    As long as it involves undoing any reforms that Blair brought into customer services then she'll be fine.
  • You obviously haven't been watching the news lately. It's the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who are being threatened with ethnic cleansing after years of subjugation.
    Yes what Hamas have threatened the Israelis with for years is now being reflected back upon the Palestinians, and suddenly now you're horrified.

    Except the Israelis are still being threatened with it too.

    And there's plenty of other Muslim states the Palestinians could seek refuge in, there's zero other Jewish ones.

    Either Hamas surrender unconditionally, or they need to be destroyed. It was true after the atrocity in October and it's still true today.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,011
    glw said:

    If anything the US under Trump is a bigger problem than our longer-term enemies because he is so unpredictable.

    So far we've seen Trump talking about seizing the Panama canal, taking over Greenland, incorporating Canada as the 51st state, designating cartels as terrorist groups to allow military intervention in Mexico, buying Gaza and expelling the Palestinians with no right to return, and many other extreme ideas within the US itself. In none of these cases does Trump seem to have discussed these ideas with the countries they apply to first, and the wishes of the governments and citizens do not appear to concern him at all. This is all completely unprecedented, and actions more like those of a rogue state with a crazed dictator leading it.

    So the US may not be the enemy of the UK today, but it wouldn't take much action along the lines that Trump has mooted to make the US a de facto adversary.
    He's not even discussing his mad ideas with his own close aides first judging by the look on Rubio's face in recent days.

    I have a feeling he is going to be the first one to walk.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,329

    ...

    Where will we build them?

    "Bathgate no more
    Linwood no more
    Methil no more
    Irvine no more"

    We're f*****! Your Mrs Thatcher sold our industrial base to America, Germany and China and they closed us down and moved all our means of engineering production to Mexico, Eastern Europe and the Far East. We haven't got the skillset, the equipment, the cash or the knowhow to build weapons grade anything anymore.
    That is very plainly untrue. The UK, along with Germany and France, is a major producer of weaponry. *If we have the will* clearly we can ramp up production.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,011
    I see Mitch McConnell has finally found a backbone in old age.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155

    Yes, I know people who are doing that.

    Optimal solution if you want to game the system, as I've often said, is work 16 hours on the books, get benefits, and work cash in hand beyond that. If you can get PIP on top, even better.
    If you know anyone doing that you should report them.

    https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

    Fail to do so and you are complicit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,242
    edited February 12
    If this is a real proposal it makes me assume Reform are going Nimby harder than anyone has ever Nimbyed before, which could be a popular play. If today's system were were in place we'd probably never have built transmission towers, railways, or motorways, politicians would be too scared.

    Genuinely impressive to scramble around and discover four policies that somehow both oppose net zero *and* increase the cost of energy.

    Normally these two things are diametrically opposed. But this policy announcement somehow unites them in all the wrong ways.

    https://nitter.poast.org/tomhfh/status/1889800077771940032#m

    ReformUk
    Windfall tax on renewable generated power
    A solar farm tax on farms taking the renewable subsidy
    Ban on Battery Energy Storage Systens
    Legislate to force national grid to put cables underground
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,242
    Sean_F said:

    That is very plainly untrue. The UK, along with Germany and France, is a major producer of weaponry. *If we have the will* clearly we can ramp up production.
    We don't, and we're too poor try if we did.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155

    I see Mitch McConnell has finally found a backbone in old age.

    He's had fish for dinner?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,242

    I see Mitch McConnell has finally found a backbone in old age.

    When it won't matter.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,155
    kle4 said:

    If this is a real proposal it makes me assume Reform are going Nimby harder than anyone has ever Nimbyed before, which could be a popular play. If today's system were were in place we'd probably never have built transmission towers, railways, or motorways, politicians would be too scared.

    Genuinely impressive to scramble around and discover four policies that somehow both oppose net zero *and* increase the cost of energy.

    Normally these two things are diametrically opposed. But this policy announcement somehow unites them in all the wrong ways.

    https://nitter.poast.org/tomhfh/status/1889800077771940032#m

    ReformUk
    Windfall tax on renewable generated power
    A solar farm tax on farms taking the renewable subsidy
    Ban on Battery Energy Storage Systens
    Legislate to force national grid to put cables underground

    Climate-change deniers' revenge.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,242

    He's not even discussing his mad ideas with his own close aides first judging by the look on Rubio's face in recent days.

    I have a feeling he is going to be the first one to walk.
    None of those who lined up with him this time could have been under any illusions about what he would be like or be surprised by anything he might say. I will frankly be astonished if any of them find there are lines required of them they are not willing to cross - what did they expect?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,827

    ...

    That really isn't true. I knew lots of traditional Labour and Liberal voters in 1970 who lent their votes to Ted. Harold was quite a divisive figure and the print media hated him (not least because he had won two elections) It might of course have been Ted's stance on joining the Common Market. For that alone I'd have voted for him if I'd had a vote aged eight. Wasn't so keen on his Education Secretary mind.
    Was Casino around back then ?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,357
    kle4 said:

    If this is a real proposal it makes me assume Reform are going Nimby harder than anyone has ever Nimbyed before, which could be a popular play. If today's system were were in place we'd probably never have built transmission towers, railways, or motorways, politicians would be too scared.

    Genuinely impressive to scramble around and discover four policies that somehow both oppose net zero *and* increase the cost of energy.

    Normally these two things are diametrically opposed. But this policy announcement somehow unites them in all the wrong ways.

    https://nitter.poast.org/tomhfh/status/1889800077771940032#m

    ReformUk
    Windfall tax on renewable generated power
    A solar farm tax on farms taking the renewable subsidy
    Ban on Battery Energy Storage Systens
    Legislate to force national grid to put cables underground

    Reform are wrong about everything. If you went through every issue line by line and came up with the most ill-informed answer on every one you would have the Reform manifesto.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,848

    Yes what Hamas have threatened the Israelis with for years is now being reflected back upon the Palestinians, and suddenly now you're horrified.

    Except the Israelis are still being threatened with it too.

    And there's plenty of other Muslim states the Palestinians could seek refuge in, there's zero other Jewish ones.

    Either Hamas surrender unconditionally, or they need to be destroyed. It was true after the atrocity in October and it's still true today.
    If the Americans invaded England and told you you had to live in a tent in a refugee camp in Wales you'd have something to say about it.

    What your clown Trump has done is green lighted Bibi to kill.or displace 2 million Palestinians through a process of ethnic cleansing. True, you might eradicate 30,000 Hamas fighters, but the ones living in Doha remain in clover cooking up retribution across the globe.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,288
    kle4 said:

    If this is a real proposal it makes me assume Reform are going Nimby harder than anyone has ever Nimbyed before, which could be a popular play. If today's system were were in place we'd probably never have built transmission towers, railways, or motorways, politicians would be too scared.

    Genuinely impressive to scramble around and discover four policies that somehow both oppose net zero *and* increase the cost of energy.

    Normally these two things are diametrically opposed. But this policy announcement somehow unites them in all the wrong ways.

    https://nitter.poast.org/tomhfh/status/1889800077771940032#m

    ReformUk
    Windfall tax on renewable generated power
    A solar farm tax on farms taking the renewable subsidy
    Ban on Battery Energy Storage Systens
    Legislate to force national grid to put cables underground

    Wow that's four really stupid policies. Did Trump come up with those?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,242
    glw said:

    If anything the US under Trump is a bigger problem than our longer-term enemies because he is so unpredictable.
    You might not always like them as allies, they might screw you over a bit, but at our level at least we ultimately knew we would remain tight?

    Trump, being very transactional on an immediate basis, presumably will go out of his way to say no-one can rely on the USA, no matter past connections or alliances.

  • If the Americans invaded England and told you you had to live in a tent in a refugee camp in Wales you'd have something to say about it.

    What your clown Trump has done is green lighted Bibi to kill.or displace 2 million Palestinians through a process of ethnic cleansing. True, you might eradicate 30,000 Hamas fighters, but the ones living in Doha remain in clover cooking up retribution across the globe.
    Trump is not my clown, I despise him and always have.

    My preferred solution is that Hamas surrender unconditionally. My least worst solution if they insist that the fighting continues is that Hamas are destroyed.

    Better Hamas fighters living in Doha than Gaza.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,288

    Climate-change deniers' revenge.
    It appears to be policies aimed at people who think energy is far too cheap and reliable.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,666

    Reform are wrong about everything. If you went through every issue line by line and came up with the most ill-informed answer on every one you would have the Reform manifesto.
    Except, today at least, Ukraine joining NATO.
  • If you know anyone doing that you should report them.

    https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

    Fail to do so and you are complicit.
    I've done so before, nothing ever happens. The system is broken.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,666
    glw said:

    It appears to be policies aimed at people who think energy is far too cheap and reliable.
    People who think batteries and pylons are woke.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,242
    edited February 12

    Reform are wrong about everything. If you went through every issue line by line and came up with the most ill-informed answer on every one you would have the Reform manifesto.
    I read all the manifestos I could find, and I can tell you that the SDP one was the wackiest. It had an unusual level of detail on local government and academia minutiae, making me think it was written by a student or a cllr who worked at a university. They were going to make all pupils and staff jog a mile every day.

    I think I rated the Reform one as a B, being well presented (and mercifully short) if insubstantial.
This discussion has been closed.