I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
We should let court proceedings reach a conclusion, but I suggest the question that should be facing us is whether Netanyahu should be in jail in Jerusalem for corruption or jail in The Hague for war crimes.
Yes and no.
Fighting Hamas is not a crime. Corruption is.
The very point of "war crimes" is that they distinguish between fighting an enemy and actions that are so horrendous that we find them unacceptable. Netanyahu is not charged with war crimes for fighting Hamas.
Also, has it been updated since Israel invaded more Syrian territory than that they had long held? I mean, that won't balance the bar graph, but Israel's figure has been going up.
To mark Pride month, and to stand in solidarity with our LGBTQ+ colleagues, #MI6 is proudly flying the Pride flag from Vauxhall Cross, alongside the Union Flag, for the whole month of June. Your sexual orientation is no bar to you working and thriving at MI6 #Pride2025
There's a clear opening for Reform's DOGE-style chainsaws. Of course, they'd not save money on the flag since they've already bought that, and the wages of the chap who raises and lowers flags on the South Bank are another sunk cost, and Elon doesn't charge by the tweet. So no actual savings.
Given DOGE is one of the biggest failures in political history, it is notable that Reform UK think it’s a brand worth associating with.
What was it about this well-publicised effort to cut wasteful and counterproductive pending and shrink the size of the state that seems to have offended you so much?
DOGE said it would cut at least 2 trillion dollars. Based on their own numbers, they managed less than 10% of that. Their own numbers turned out to be frequently fallacious, so the actual figure is less than 5% of their stated aim. Indeed, DOGE has frequently cost the US government money. How is that not a massive failure?
Over promise under deliver is the norm for politics, but if they saved even tens of billions of dollars, let alone hundreds of billions how is that not a massive success?
About the only thing this administration has done right, and now all going to be pissed away by Trump's asinine bill, but saving hundreds of billions of dollars isn't a failure.
"[S]aving hundreds of billions of dollars" may or may not be a failure, but they haven't saved hundreds of billions of dollars. The BBC estimates that provable cuts are only $33 billion.
Also, to save implies you have cut unnecessary spending. The drop in tax revenue from the DOGE IRS cuts alone has been estimated at around $500 billion, so DOGE has net cost the government. Many of the other cuts, e.g. to the National Science Foundation, are probably deeply unwise in terms of the country's long-term success.
DOGE, by any metric, is a massive failure.
It's not even clear whether these are legitimate savings. As you say, is gutting the USA's future a "saving"?
Plus much of it has been done illegally, and there are items such as commandeering office buildings owned by independent agencies.
And the costs of restitution and compensation to victims of illegal actions are not covered.
IIRC the $33billion isn’t even over a single year - it’s from multiple years of future US expenditure so the actual cut to the annual US budget is a tiny fraction of the total.
& as others have pointed out a chunk of the savings have come from gutting US research, which will have knock-on effects potentially for decades. I just read today that funding has been cut from a Tuberculosis vaccine that was 2 years out from finally being made available. Since treatment-resistant TB is on the rise this seems like something of a big deal? I bet the total costs to the US of treating TB over the next decade will vastly outweigh the expenditure on developing this vaccine.
Maybe the vaccine wouldn’t have worked - nothing is certain in science after all - but DOGE seems to have been carrying out this kind of “penny wise, pound foolish” arbitrary cutting of programs all over the place. One of the things they did was do through & cut any program that mentioned “trans”, presumably thinking they were all DEI/LGBTQ related research. This included a bunch of programs doing research using transgenic mice.
Transport in the USA can't have come out well of that.
Social media currently enjoying the videos of very bored people being forced to listen to Reeves drivel this morning.
Mrs C made very much the same comment during the one 'clock news yesterday, while watching Starmer make his speech to the staff at an industrial workplace of some sort in Glasgow. If ever a group of people clearly didn't want to be there ......
Not sure going to a Govan shipyard to drop the good news that 12 attack subs are going to be built in a place that isn't Govan would put much a smile on the faces of the locals.
The way modern ships are built, it's perfectly feasible for components / parts to be built around the place. In the same way the QE2 carriers were built in parts, in places like Portsmouth, Birkenhead, Appledore and Portsmouth, before being assembled at Rosyth. Whether the subs will be built in that manner is another matter...
(ISTR the Germans had some (ahem) problems when they tried building their Type 21 boats in that manner, late in the war.)
Yes but afaik Govan has no history of building sub modules, the BBC puff piece mentioned Barrow-in-Furness and Derby for the attack subs. If you’re going to do pork barrel go to the place that’s getting the pork is one of the first lessons of low politicking. Additionally there’s quite an important by-election for SLab taking place less than 20 miles from Govan, you’d have thought Sir Keir might have found time to have sprinkled some of his special brand of fairy dust there.
I'm always bemused by the Derby part of that. A certain complex of buildings off Raynesway in Derby has *very* high, if understated, security.
Of course it does, its where Rolls Royce, who make submarine mini reactors, are based.
Its the same technology for the mini reactors for nuclear generation of electricity, but so far RR have not landed too many orders for them, despite trying to be members of at least two consortia. Now they have so much work on subs, they are likely to lose interest in mini-nuke power stations, and yet another UK lead in technology will be wasted.
Why do we do this? Again and again and again. Throw our technology leadership away or sell it off.
Here's a submarine section for the Dreadnaughts arriving in Barrow last week:
Alongside the Scottish by election, 8 local ones tomorrow, 3 Lab, 3 Con, 2 LD defences
LAB - Amber Valley looks a straight Lab vs Reform Lab defend big majority 2 x Kings Lynn/West Norfolk - annoyingly for judging affairs in Norfolk the Tories have bottled standing in either so these will im almost certain be Reform gains on massive swings. Both are within Kings Lynn proper rather than the wealthy rural part.
CON - Tendring. This is Farage central, Ref gain Wokingham- won with 28% in 2024, free for all West Sussex - probably a question of holding off LDs or not
LD - 2 x West Sussex. Probably 2 holds, Tories will hope they can nick one (maybe Burgess Hill North but I'm not predicting that will happen)
I suspect it will be a very bad night for Tories and Labour, a pretty good one for LDs and a bumper one for Reform
I think (fear?) the comparison with the Tamil Tigers might be apt. Yes the Tigers have been eliminated. But, and I hope someone here knows the answer, is the rest off the Sri Lankan population being forgiving of, and generous to, the Tamil population? I know the Tigers didn't have universal support among the Tamil section of the population, but will there be/ is there a group of discontented Tamil youth who will one day take up arms again. Or is the example of such as Muttiah Muralitharan, a Tamil and hero to many Sri Lankans of both communities, who has worked for reconciliation enough?
Social media currently enjoying the videos of very bored people being forced to listen to Reeves drivel this morning.
Mrs C made very much the same comment during the one 'clock news yesterday, while watching Starmer make his speech to the staff at an industrial workplace of some sort in Glasgow. If ever a group of people clearly didn't want to be there ......
Not sure going to a Govan shipyard to drop the good news that 12 attack subs are going to be built in a place that isn't Govan would put much a smile on the faces of the locals.
The way modern ships are built, it's perfectly feasible for components / parts to be built around the place. In the same way the QE2 carriers were built in parts, in places like Portsmouth, Birkenhead, Appledore and Portsmouth, before being assembled at Rosyth. Whether the subs will be built in that manner is another matter...
(ISTR the Germans had some (ahem) problems when they tried building their Type 21 boats in that manner, late in the war.)
Yes but afaik Govan has no history of building sub modules, the BBC puff piece mentioned Barrow-in-Furness and Derby for the attack subs. If you’re going to do pork barrel go to the place that’s getting the pork is one of the first lessons of low politicking. Additionally there’s quite an important by-election for SLab taking place less than 20 miles from Govan, you’d have thought Sir Keir might have found time to have sprinkled some of his special brand of fairy dust there.
I'm always bemused by the Derby part of that. A certain complex of buildings off Raynesway in Derby has *very* high, if understated, security.
Of course it does, its where Rolls Royce, who make submarine mini reactors, are based.
Its the same technology for the mini reactors for nuclear generation of electricity, but so far RR have not landed too many orders for them, despite trying to be members of at least two consortia. Now they have so much work on subs, they are likely to lose interest in mini-nuke power stations, and yet another UK lead in technology will be wasted.
Well of course, there is no concept of sticking to a costs budget when working for the MoD.
Special assignment for me: a night out in Blackpool in Britain's first Reform Pub. The owner told us he'd now vote Remain, if he knew then what he knows now.
The story though was the same as everywhere: the most profound rejection of politics itself.
Alongside the Scottish by election, 8 local ones tomorrow, 3 Lab, 3 Con, 2 LD defences
LAB - Amber Valley looks a straight Lab vs Reform Lab defend big majority 2 x Kings Lynn/West Norfolk - annoyingly for judging affairs in Norfolk the Tories have bottled standing in either so these will im almost certain be Reform gains on massive swings. Both are within Kings Lynn proper rather than the wealthy rural part.
CON - Tendring. This is Farage central, Ref gain Wokingham- won with 28% in 2024, free for all West Sussex - probably a question of holding off LDs or not
LD - 2 x West Sussex. Probably 2 holds, Tories will hope they can nick one (maybe Burgess Hill North but I'm not predicting that will happen)
I suspect it will be a very bad night for Tories and Labour, a pretty good one for LDs and a bumper one for Reform
I'd be amazed if the Tories win any of these.
I agree. Their best bet is probably holding St Leonards Forest in West Sussex but a 25% majority from 2021 has probably eroded by now.........
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Netanyahu's government is almost as bad as Hamas.
No, Netanyahu is bad, but they're nowhere near as bad.
If Israel lays down its arms then Hamas would gladly kill every Jew from the river to the sea. If Hamas lays down its arms, the conflict would be over.
But in the real world, it's the Israelis doing the mass-killing.
In the real world the Israelis are going after Hamas who did the mass-killing and still have hostages. As they bloody should.
In the real world the innocents are being denied the right to seek refuge in neighbouring nations as normally happens in wars.
In the real world innocents are being used as human shields by Hamas.
If the Gazans leave & seek refuge elsewhere, then the Israeli government will never allow them to return to Gaza.
Defenders of the Israeli government are not operating in good faith when they make this argument.
A permanent displacement and ethnic cleansing of Gaza is part of the official policy of the Netenyahu government (and also, now the Trump government).
If the neighbouring Arab countries allow any Gazans to enter their territory, then they would be complicit in this ethnic cleansing.
So you'd rather they die instead to prove a point?
Israel should stop mass-killing Palestinians.
As soon as Hamas is eliminated, like the Tamil Tigers were eliminated.
Millions of Tamils still live in Sri Lanka. Tamil is still a joint-official language of Sri Lanka.
So you agree, its possible to eliminate a threat without committing genocide.
So Israel needs to take a leaf out of the Sri Lankans book and eliminate Hamas using similar techniques to how Sri Lanka eliminated the Tigers. It won't need 2 million dead Gazans to do so, any more than it took the elimination of all Tamils to do so.
You know nothing of the history or what actually happened. Stop projecting your biased Isreal view on another part of the World. Ignorant fool!
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
Hamas could just release the hostages. That would make it harder for Netanyahu to keep fighting.
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
Hamas could just release the hostages. That would make it harder for Netanyahu to keep fighting.
The chancellor has begun meeting groups of backbenchers to argue that the money, part of a £113bn investment in capital projects over the rest of the parliament including transport, homes and energy, would only have happened under Labour.
Just three Whitehall departments are still to agree their multi-year budgets with the Treasury before the spending review, the Guardian understands, with the home secretary, Yvette Cooper; the energy secretary, Ed Miliband; and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, holding out...
That £15bn for trains and trams outside London looks very positive. A big chunk of it needs to be trams and light rail.
But there will be a few battles around groups such as Transport 2000 (whatever they are called now) trying to nick multiuser rail-trails back). We had an attempted mugging to grab the Monsal Trail in Derbyshire for a proposed railway, despite it being used by 300-600k people per annum. When I last heard it had been fought off, but I am not fully up to date - they will be back.
Rail Trails of course being ideal accessible (and safe family cycling) trails, like towpaths.
I can see RefUK Councils (and TBH others) falling for that one - oooh, big exciting machines - if they get around to doing any projects, and not being especially good at listening to different stakeholders. They like easy answers.
That's why he need the whole damn lot of Local Authority managed trails made into Public Rights of Way by statute. I have not won that one yet !
We have a similar upcoming battle in Edinburgh. The principle should always to put trams on roads, not paths, if the intention is to reduce car use. Learn the lesson from Dublin - they don't work as well if hidden away down an embankment.
For railways, I think it's harder to make that argument. 600,000 is a lot of people though, so you'd hope that alternative provision is put in place - the Australians manage to do this with new infrastructure, and so did HS2.
The trams work better on roads because that is where people are is an interesting argument. Nottingham has in general done this really well imo, but they already had "green corridors" in a number of places in the early 20c or 19C - I'm not sure of reasons why.
It's in the Peak National Park, which should help - so I think the Local Planning authority is the Peak Park itself.
It's one question around us till need to be developing decent networks of separated mobility tracks in a country with chaotic transport policy. Defending an existing network would be easier, but here we are.
And Equal Rights to transport services (including accessible trails) are presumably on the Farage list of things to destroy by killing the Equalities Act 2010. I'm not sure if they are on the DOLGE list of "inefficiencies".
Many locals do not actually like the Monsal Trail - or at least bits that are not *their* bit. The area is already very busy in summer, with sometimes massive traffic queues. The trail has just acted as a draw for more people to come, increasing the traffic problems.
Imagine if there was a nice railway line that could bring people up into the very heart of the Peak District from Sheffield, Manchester, or even London, as the Hope Valley line does for the area further north?
(I wasn't quite a local, even when I lived in Derbyshire.)
I think spending money on grabbing one of the few decent, used things, to destroy it, is perhaps a mistake.
I would argue the other way - imagine if there was an entire network of accessible paths - everywhere, with no barriers keeping disabled and other people out, rather than just the Monsal Trail.
Then there would be more visitors, great for the economy, and they would spread out more. Done reasonably, including access routes etc, and traffic would fall.
Being a little more ambitious, imagine if that were everywhere - mobility tracks, ideally separated, as alternatives to every A and B road in the country. That's one element of what I want to see, and the road length in England is only 80k miles for A and B roads.
One practical idea I do wonder about is if some of these proposals could use narrow gauge.
It is not one of the "few decent, used things". Nearby are two other, very long, active travel routes along disused railways - the Tissington Trail and the High Peak Trail. The entire area is crisscrossed with routes, including the Pennine Bridleway. The area has many routes for cyclists and walkers.
Also, unless they've opened the extension towards Matlock, the trail starts in the middle of nowhere and ends even more in the middle of nowhere. It is not like an active travel route in a city, used by commuters: it is a *destination*. People travel - by car - to use it.
It makes the transport situation far worse, not better.
No, narrow gauge would be f-all use. As you well know for cyclists, we need *networks*, not disjointed sections.
A couple of points. After a dig, I think the "Monsal Trail Extension" as you call it has been done, but not called that. The section to Matlock seems to have been opened in 2018.
There's a cycle route called the "White Peak Loop", which is 60 miles - currently beyond me for a day ride. One for you to try and report back on . It looks OK, but I have never seen a review. Impressive, but it does not look quite good enough to send two 12 years off on on their own (my first walking experience in the White Peak), and the standard for cycling infra is "for everyone from 8 to 80". Site: https://cycle.travel/map/journey/690964
On alternatives - I agree with you on active travel. At present these are day destinations mainly (unless approaching from say Manchester), whilst they need to be backbones within a dense everywhere-to everywhere active travel network, including eg the next village. Leisure active travel can only be a sub-network within utility active travel. "Drive somewhere and take your dog / granny / disabled relative for a walk" is not equality, and we need to remember that 40% of disabled adults do not have a driving license.
(Switching to trains / buses for a moment, these could help if they were universally accessible - but they are not and eg Network Rail and Bus Companies will only ever do the absolute legally required minimum, as 25 years of experience teaches.)
Something 5 or 10 miles away is not really nearby. Incidentally, the Tissington Trail is not accessible (I've done that one several times) - it is built to ~1990s standards and needs overhaul even to reach a basic level (barriers, gradients, crossings) before we even get to more tricky things like surface treatment. I'm not arguing for the entire paths network to be accessible, but those that are supposed to be accessible need to meet minimum standards.
From the "new railway" promoters, I get the impression that they are not looking for a win-win so far, and have a "where can we move them to so we can go back to how it was in 1960" mentality, arguing around things like "400k people using it is not very many" and so on. That won't work.
I'd be interested in @MustaphaMondeo 's comments on these former railways in the Peaks, if he has any.
It is not about a "go back to how it was in 1960" mentality.
It is about a vital connection in the network being rebuilt. One that would relieve pressure on the railways around Manchester and Sheffield, as well as give more routes/paths on the WCML. Worth it for the stone trains alone. The advantage to the country - and the Peak District - to having that route reopened for passengers and freight far outweighs the utility of people driving into the Peak District to use it, especially when there are many other trails.
The passenger usage of the line alone was seen as being potentially massive - ISTR a million additional journeys a year, if built to support a good timetable. And these studies were done at times when reopening railways was uncommon and frowned upon.
(Incidentally, one big reason given for the route's closure was the poor state of the Dove Holes Tunnel. Except that stretch of the route was kept open for stone trains, and the tunnel is still in use. Railway politics, eh?)
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
The remaining leaders of the Tigers surrendered and laid down their arms.
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
Hamas could just release the hostages. That would make it harder for Netanyahu to keep fighting.
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
Hamas could just release the hostages. That would make it harder for Netanyahu to keep fighting.
Not if Netanyahu is intent on "eliminating" Hamas. Netanyahu is intent on continuing the fighting, full stop.
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
The chancellor has begun meeting groups of backbenchers to argue that the money, part of a £113bn investment in capital projects over the rest of the parliament including transport, homes and energy, would only have happened under Labour.
Just three Whitehall departments are still to agree their multi-year budgets with the Treasury before the spending review, the Guardian understands, with the home secretary, Yvette Cooper; the energy secretary, Ed Miliband; and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, holding out...
That £15bn for trains and trams outside London looks very positive. A big chunk of it needs to be trams and light rail.
But there will be a few battles around groups such as Transport 2000 (whatever they are called now) trying to nick multiuser rail-trails back). We had an attempted mugging to grab the Monsal Trail in Derbyshire for a proposed railway, despite it being used by 300-600k people per annum. When I last heard it had been fought off, but I am not fully up to date - they will be back.
Rail Trails of course being ideal accessible (and safe family cycling) trails, like towpaths.
I can see RefUK Councils (and TBH others) falling for that one - oooh, big exciting machines - if they get around to doing any projects, and not being especially good at listening to different stakeholders. They like easy answers.
That's why he need the whole damn lot of Local Authority managed trails made into Public Rights of Way by statute. I have not won that one yet !
We have a similar upcoming battle in Edinburgh. The principle should always to put trams on roads, not paths, if the intention is to reduce car use. Learn the lesson from Dublin - they don't work as well if hidden away down an embankment.
For railways, I think it's harder to make that argument. 600,000 is a lot of people though, so you'd hope that alternative provision is put in place - the Australians manage to do this with new infrastructure, and so did HS2.
The trams work better on roads because that is where people are is an interesting argument. Nottingham has in general done this really well imo, but they already had "green corridors" in a number of places in the early 20c or 19C - I'm not sure of reasons why.
It's in the Peak National Park, which should help - so I think the Local Planning authority is the Peak Park itself.
It's one question around us till need to be developing decent networks of separated mobility tracks in a country with chaotic transport policy. Defending an existing network would be easier, but here we are.
And Equal Rights to transport services (including accessible trails) are presumably on the Farage list of things to destroy by killing the Equalities Act 2010. I'm not sure if they are on the DOLGE list of "inefficiencies".
Many locals do not actually like the Monsal Trail - or at least bits that are not *their* bit. The area is already very busy in summer, with sometimes massive traffic queues. The trail has just acted as a draw for more people to come, increasing the traffic problems.
Imagine if there was a nice railway line that could bring people up into the very heart of the Peak District from Sheffield, Manchester, or even London, as the Hope Valley line does for the area further north?
(I wasn't quite a local, even when I lived in Derbyshire.)
I think spending money on grabbing one of the few decent, used things, to destroy it, is perhaps a mistake.
I would argue the other way - imagine if there was an entire network of accessible paths - everywhere, with no barriers keeping disabled and other people out, rather than just the Monsal Trail.
Then there would be more visitors, great for the economy, and they would spread out more. Done reasonably, including access routes etc, and traffic would fall.
Being a little more ambitious, imagine if that were everywhere - mobility tracks, ideally separated, as alternatives to every A and B road in the country. That's one element of what I want to see, and the road length in England is only 80k miles for A and B roads.
One practical idea I do wonder about is if some of these proposals could use narrow gauge.
It is not one of the "few decent, used things". Nearby are two other, very long, active travel routes along disused railways - the Tissington Trail and the High Peak Trail. The entire area is crisscrossed with routes, including the Pennine Bridleway. The area has many routes for cyclists and walkers.
Also, unless they've opened the extension towards Matlock, the trail starts in the middle of nowhere and ends even more in the middle of nowhere. It is not like an active travel route in a city, used by commuters: it is a *destination*. People travel - by car - to use it.
It makes the transport situation far worse, not better.
No, narrow gauge would be f-all use. As you well know for cyclists, we need *networks*, not disjointed sections.
The suggestion that the Monsal trail is either/or is daft. It was a double track main line, it would be perfectly feasible to put it back as single track with passing loops, with the trail on the space originally used for the other track.
It is a really obvious missing transport link, and it would be dirt cheap to put back, the only thing missing is the political will.
The railway line between Airdrie and Bathgate was closed many years ago and subsequently converted to a cycle track. When the line was reopened, a new cycle track was built next to the line. Not difficult. Not expensive.
IIRC the Monsal Trail goes through tunnels which would be expensive to duplicate.
No need. Double track width tunnels. Stick a fence up the middle, (you can go floor to roof if you're worried about teenagers climbing the fence and playing chicken) cycle path one side, railway the other. Job done.
Labour MPs are planning to rebel over the planning and infrastructure bill after constituents raised concern that it threatens protected habitats and wildlife.
The Guardian understands that about two dozen Labour MPs are calling for ministers to force developers to build more than a million homes for which they already have planning permission before pushing through legislation that rolls back environmental protections for the most protected habitats in England.
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
The remaining leaders of the Tigers surrendered and laid down their arms.
Hamas have not.
The war must continue until they do.
Netanyahu would hate for the remaining leaders of Hamas to surrender and lay down their arms!
What excuse would he then have to concoct to continue the fighting and keep out of jail? He'd find one. Total elimination?
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
The remaining leaders of the Tigers surrendered and laid down their arms.
Hamas have not.
The war must continue until they do.
Netanyahu would hate for the remaining leaders of Hamas to surrender and lay down their arms!
What excuse would he then have to concoct to continue the fighting and keep out of jail? He'd find one. Total elimination?
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
Who's going to put him in jail?
The Israeli justice system on charge of corruption, which has been suspended as long as he remains PM. I.e as long as the fighting continues.
There are certain others who seem near the brink (internal investigations etc), and some with extremist affiliations (eg Patriotic Alternative), or recent questionable comments or SM activity, who are being stolidly ignored by the leadership.
It's early days, but I'd suggest very tentatively looks like a short/medium term (ie over 3-6 months) run rate of one or a little more losses per week.
Does anybody have any approximate numbers as to what "normal" losses are for other political parties?
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
The remaining leaders of the Tigers surrendered and laid down their arms.
Hamas have not.
The war must continue until they do.
Netanyahu would hate for the remaining leaders of Hamas to surrender and lay down their arms!
What excuse would he then have to concoct to continue the fighting and keep out of jail? He'd find one. Total elimination?
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
Hamas could just release the hostages. That would make it harder for Netanyahu to keep fighting.
The chancellor has begun meeting groups of backbenchers to argue that the money, part of a £113bn investment in capital projects over the rest of the parliament including transport, homes and energy, would only have happened under Labour.
Just three Whitehall departments are still to agree their multi-year budgets with the Treasury before the spending review, the Guardian understands, with the home secretary, Yvette Cooper; the energy secretary, Ed Miliband; and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, holding out...
That £15bn for trains and trams outside London looks very positive. A big chunk of it needs to be trams and light rail.
But there will be a few battles around groups such as Transport 2000 (whatever they are called now) trying to nick multiuser rail-trails back). We had an attempted mugging to grab the Monsal Trail in Derbyshire for a proposed railway, despite it being used by 300-600k people per annum. When I last heard it had been fought off, but I am not fully up to date - they will be back.
Rail Trails of course being ideal accessible (and safe family cycling) trails, like towpaths.
I can see RefUK Councils (and TBH others) falling for that one - oooh, big exciting machines - if they get around to doing any projects, and not being especially good at listening to different stakeholders. They like easy answers.
That's why he need the whole damn lot of Local Authority managed trails made into Public Rights of Way by statute. I have not won that one yet !
We have a similar upcoming battle in Edinburgh. The principle should always to put trams on roads, not paths, if the intention is to reduce car use. Learn the lesson from Dublin - they don't work as well if hidden away down an embankment.
For railways, I think it's harder to make that argument. 600,000 is a lot of people though, so you'd hope that alternative provision is put in place - the Australians manage to do this with new infrastructure, and so did HS2.
The trams work better on roads because that is where people are is an interesting argument. Nottingham has in general done this really well imo, but they already had "green corridors" in a number of places in the early 20c or 19C - I'm not sure of reasons why.
It's in the Peak National Park, which should help - so I think the Local Planning authority is the Peak Park itself.
It's one question around us till need to be developing decent networks of separated mobility tracks in a country with chaotic transport policy. Defending an existing network would be easier, but here we are.
And Equal Rights to transport services (including accessible trails) are presumably on the Farage list of things to destroy by killing the Equalities Act 2010. I'm not sure if they are on the DOLGE list of "inefficiencies".
Many locals do not actually like the Monsal Trail - or at least bits that are not *their* bit. The area is already very busy in summer, with sometimes massive traffic queues. The trail has just acted as a draw for more people to come, increasing the traffic problems.
Imagine if there was a nice railway line that could bring people up into the very heart of the Peak District from Sheffield, Manchester, or even London, as the Hope Valley line does for the area further north?
(I wasn't quite a local, even when I lived in Derbyshire.)
I think spending money on grabbing one of the few decent, used things, to destroy it, is perhaps a mistake.
I would argue the other way - imagine if there was an entire network of accessible paths - everywhere, with no barriers keeping disabled and other people out, rather than just the Monsal Trail.
Then there would be more visitors, great for the economy, and they would spread out more. Done reasonably, including access routes etc, and traffic would fall.
Being a little more ambitious, imagine if that were everywhere - mobility tracks, ideally separated, as alternatives to every A and B road in the country. That's one element of what I want to see, and the road length in England is only 80k miles for A and B roads.
One practical idea I do wonder about is if some of these proposals could use narrow gauge.
It is not one of the "few decent, used things". Nearby are two other, very long, active travel routes along disused railways - the Tissington Trail and the High Peak Trail. The entire area is crisscrossed with routes, including the Pennine Bridleway. The area has many routes for cyclists and walkers.
Also, unless they've opened the extension towards Matlock, the trail starts in the middle of nowhere and ends even more in the middle of nowhere. It is not like an active travel route in a city, used by commuters: it is a *destination*. People travel - by car - to use it.
It makes the transport situation far worse, not better.
No, narrow gauge would be f-all use. As you well know for cyclists, we need *networks*, not disjointed sections.
The suggestion that the Monsal trail is either/or is daft. It was a double track main line, it would be perfectly feasible to put it back as single track with passing loops, with the trail on the space originally used for the other track.
It is a really obvious missing transport link, and it would be dirt cheap to put back, the only thing missing is the political will.
The railway line between Airdrie and Bathgate was closed many years ago and subsequently converted to a cycle track. When the line was reopened, a new cycle track was built next to the line. Not difficult. Not expensive.
IIRC the Monsal Trail goes through tunnels which would be expensive to duplicate.
No need. Double track width tunnels. Stick a fence up the middle, (you can go floor to roof if you're worried about teenagers climbing the fence and playing chicken) cycle path one side, railway the other. Job done.
From what I recall, that's wrong. Yes, the route was a double-track mainline. But the fallacy of reopening lines with a single track has been seen several times recently, with lines soon reaching maximum service levels with little room for increase. And this is a mainline, not a branch.
Also, leaving aside electrification clearances, several of the tunnels are slightly smaller than would be liked, especially for W10/W12 containers. Ways to do this involve either digging down into the tunnel's invert and replacing it with concrete slab track, or putting a single line down the middle of the tunnel.
Then there's the safety aspect of a railway directly alongside an on-formation path. It is okay for heritage lines or low-speed routes, but less so for faster lines, or lines carrying heavy freight.
If you want to reopen it as a tourist line pottering along at 25MPH max, fair enough. If you want to reopen it properly, as part of a national network, then it needs to be done properly.
It needs doing, and it needs doing properly.
I am all in favour of converting old lines into trails. But if that route can later best serve the country as a railway line, then it should be a railway.
The chancellor has begun meeting groups of backbenchers to argue that the money, part of a £113bn investment in capital projects over the rest of the parliament including transport, homes and energy, would only have happened under Labour.
Just three Whitehall departments are still to agree their multi-year budgets with the Treasury before the spending review, the Guardian understands, with the home secretary, Yvette Cooper; the energy secretary, Ed Miliband; and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner, holding out...
That £15bn for trains and trams outside London looks very positive. A big chunk of it needs to be trams and light rail.
But there will be a few battles around groups such as Transport 2000 (whatever they are called now) trying to nick multiuser rail-trails back). We had an attempted mugging to grab the Monsal Trail in Derbyshire for a proposed railway, despite it being used by 300-600k people per annum. When I last heard it had been fought off, but I am not fully up to date - they will be back.
Rail Trails of course being ideal accessible (and safe family cycling) trails, like towpaths.
I can see RefUK Councils (and TBH others) falling for that one - oooh, big exciting machines - if they get around to doing any projects, and not being especially good at listening to different stakeholders. They like easy answers.
That's why he need the whole damn lot of Local Authority managed trails made into Public Rights of Way by statute. I have not won that one yet !
We have a similar upcoming battle in Edinburgh. The principle should always to put trams on roads, not paths, if the intention is to reduce car use. Learn the lesson from Dublin - they don't work as well if hidden away down an embankment.
For railways, I think it's harder to make that argument. 600,000 is a lot of people though, so you'd hope that alternative provision is put in place - the Australians manage to do this with new infrastructure, and so did HS2.
The trams work better on roads because that is where people are is an interesting argument. Nottingham has in general done this really well imo, but they already had "green corridors" in a number of places in the early 20c or 19C - I'm not sure of reasons why.
It's in the Peak National Park, which should help - so I think the Local Planning authority is the Peak Park itself.
It's one question around us till need to be developing decent networks of separated mobility tracks in a country with chaotic transport policy. Defending an existing network would be easier, but here we are.
And Equal Rights to transport services (including accessible trails) are presumably on the Farage list of things to destroy by killing the Equalities Act 2010. I'm not sure if they are on the DOLGE list of "inefficiencies".
Many locals do not actually like the Monsal Trail - or at least bits that are not *their* bit. The area is already very busy in summer, with sometimes massive traffic queues. The trail has just acted as a draw for more people to come, increasing the traffic problems.
Imagine if there was a nice railway line that could bring people up into the very heart of the Peak District from Sheffield, Manchester, or even London, as the Hope Valley line does for the area further north?
(I wasn't quite a local, even when I lived in Derbyshire.)
I think spending money on grabbing one of the few decent, used things, to destroy it, is perhaps a mistake.
I would argue the other way - imagine if there was an entire network of accessible paths - everywhere, with no barriers keeping disabled and other people out, rather than just the Monsal Trail.
Then there would be more visitors, great for the economy, and they would spread out more. Done reasonably, including access routes etc, and traffic would fall.
Being a little more ambitious, imagine if that were everywhere - mobility tracks, ideally separated, as alternatives to every A and B road in the country. That's one element of what I want to see, and the road length in England is only 80k miles for A and B roads.
One practical idea I do wonder about is if some of these proposals could use narrow gauge.
It is not one of the "few decent, used things". Nearby are two other, very long, active travel routes along disused railways - the Tissington Trail and the High Peak Trail. The entire area is crisscrossed with routes, including the Pennine Bridleway. The area has many routes for cyclists and walkers.
Also, unless they've opened the extension towards Matlock, the trail starts in the middle of nowhere and ends even more in the middle of nowhere. It is not like an active travel route in a city, used by commuters: it is a *destination*. People travel - by car - to use it.
It makes the transport situation far worse, not better.
No, narrow gauge would be f-all use. As you well know for cyclists, we need *networks*, not disjointed sections.
The suggestion that the Monsal trail is either/or is daft. It was a double track main line, it would be perfectly feasible to put it back as single track with passing loops, with the trail on the space originally used for the other track.
It is a really obvious missing transport link, and it would be dirt cheap to put back, the only thing missing is the political will.
The railway line between Airdrie and Bathgate was closed many years ago and subsequently converted to a cycle track. When the line was reopened, a new cycle track was built next to the line. Not difficult. Not expensive.
IIRC the Monsal Trail goes through tunnels which would be expensive to duplicate.
The original line was double track. The replacement could be single track, with room for a cycle track.
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
Yes but my point is why did the Israelis repeatedly VOTE for Netanyahu. It appears they had concluded they didn't have a serious partner when it came to creating peace.
Ah, peace. Netanyahu repeatedly called for peace-maker Rabin to be eliminated, which was actually what happened.
Sorry but saying (and I've heard multiple people do it) that the chances of peace died with Rabin's assassination is nonsense. There was an offer on the table in 2000. The Palestinians didn't appear interested.
Because the so-called "state" on offer was a patchwork quilt of Arab enclaves surrounded by Israel, not an independent nation.
Truth is there has never been a Palestinian Mandela. The cause is completely lost. Ultimately they remain pawns of powerful Islamists who see benefit in their suffering.
And whatever we think of Netanyahu the Abraham Accords created the possibility for improving the life of Gazans. No wonder Hamas and it's backers turned to 7 October.
There was no Jewish state before Israel. That didn't mean there should never be one.
I genuinely believe she had the right ideas as PM. Her execution was poor.
Her main idea was to borrow more in order to cut taxes, which went horribly wrong because the bond markets were worried the country wouldn't, or couldn't, pay the debt back.
Which bit of that did you think was the right idea?
I genuinely believe she had the right ideas as PM. Her execution was poor.
Too much, too soon and shouldn't have hidden the figures. As is often overlooked, the bulk of stuff announced in THAT budget was supported cross party. Nothing she did was out of the ordinary, but she tried to hide the figures In her rush to change things and the markets freaked out. The world economy wasn't in a stable place so we became a very obvious immediate target for the spivs.
None of it was behead all the dogs and kids down the mines stuff and the ridiculous energy situation crippled everything
To mark Pride month, and to stand in solidarity with our LGBTQ+ colleagues, #MI6 is proudly flying the Pride flag from Vauxhall Cross, alongside the Union Flag, for the whole month of June. Your sexual orientation is no bar to you working and thriving at MI6 #Pride2025
There's a clear opening for Reform's DOGE-style chainsaws. Of course, they'd not save money on the flag since they've already bought that, and the wages of the chap who raises and lowers flags on the South Bank are another sunk cost, and Elon doesn't charge by the tweet. So no actual savings.
Given DOGE is one of the biggest failures in political history, it is notable that Reform UK think it’s a brand worth associating with.
What was it about this well-publicised effort to cut wasteful and counterproductive pending and shrink the size of the state that seems to have offended you so much?
DOGE said it would cut at least 2 trillion dollars. Based on their own numbers, they managed less than 10% of that. Their own numbers turned out to be frequently fallacious, so the actual figure is less than 5% of their stated aim. Indeed, DOGE has frequently cost the US government money. How is that not a massive failure?
Errr no.
DOGE said it would cut $2 trilliion per year from the annual budget. They have cut $180bn in total spending - but some of the savings are years in the future. They've maybe cut $50bn from annual spending.
And some of the things they've saved money on, like IRS employees, will almost certainly be negative for the budget balance.
I genuinely believe she had the right ideas as PM. Her execution was poor.
“Poor” is an understatement.
She only had 2 years before an election so she panicked and rushed out a bit of fantasy economics (none of which anyone endorsed in the 2019 election, by the way) in the hope it would just - work. I guess. In doing so she shredded her reputation.
I would rather like a low tax high growth economy too, but I realise these things can’t be magic’d into life on a wish and a prayer, and I’m not an economist or senior politician.
I genuinely believe she had the right ideas as PM. Her execution was poor.
Too much, too soon and shouldn't have hidden the figures. As is often overlooked, the bulk of stuff announced in THAT budget was supported cross party. Nothing she did was out of the ordinary, but she tried to hide the figures In her rush to change things and the markets freaked out. The world economy wasn't in a stable place so we became a very obvious immediate target for the spivs.
None of it was behead all the dogs and kids down the mines stuff and the ridiculous energy situation crippled everything
And in addition to this, the long term and structural damage Idiot Reeves will do to our economy will dwarf the Truss megablip
Some fresh May Tesla sales numbers in this morning: China - 15% yoy (total EV market +38%) Germany -36% yoy (total EV market +45%) UK -45% yoy (total EV market +4.4%)
So what? Lets start looking at sales numbers once they go like for like again with the Model Y on sale.
We've seen data from a few countries so far (Australia and Norway at least) where sales are well up.
In the US, Model Y sales rebounded hard in April, but are still down year over year.
I am not a "reopen all lines shut by Beeching!!!" person. In fact, I've argued on here that it's stupid to even consider it. Even the old Great Central is pointless to reopen, especially as a fair bit of it south of Aylesbury never closed.
But there are a few stretches of line that really deserve to be reopened. The Matlock to (near) Buxton stretch is one. Skipton to Colne another. Gaps in the network that would really help the whole. March to Spalding would be a good freight diversion line, and only closed in the 1980s, but is probably a stretch too far.
But it should not be done on the basis of a "it was here before, so it needs to be rebuilt" basis. The country has changed massively since the 1960s, as have population centres. Sometimes reopening may involve rebuilding the old route, or even opening brand new ones. Or, as in the case of East-West rail, both (the srtretch from Bedford to Cambridge being planned as a totally new route).
Now we've got a Labour government in, which have been bad for railways in the past, I expect new reopening projects in England to slow. Hopefully the trickle of electrification schemes will continue though - which would be unusual for a Labour government!
I genuinely believe she had the right ideas as PM. Her execution was poor.
“Poor” is an understatement.
She only had 2 years before an election so she panicked and rushed out a bit of fantasy economics (none of which anyone endorsed in the 2019 election, by the way) in the hope it would just - work. I guess. In doing so she shredded her reputation.
I would rather like a low tax high growth economy too, but I realise these things can’t be magic’d into life on a wish and a prayer, and I’m not an economist or senior politician.
Its no more fantasy than priming the pump economics. The problem was trying it at the same time as massive fiscal stimulus (energy bailouts for all) and hiding the figures. Too much, all at once in a very vulnerable world economic situation. Had the Hail Mary (Elizabeth) worked we'd be in happy valley now of course talking about our Queen of Hearts from SW Norfolk. But thems the breaks lol
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
The remaining leaders of the Tigers surrendered and laid down their arms.
Hamas have not.
The war must continue until they do.
Netanyahu would hate for the remaining leaders of Hamas to surrender and lay down their arms!
What excuse would he then have to concoct to continue the fighting and keep out of jail? He'd find one. Total elimination?
All the more reason to demand Hamas surrenders then. Win/win.
Everyone objecting to the fighting is only supporting Hamas not to surrender and Netanyahu to remain in power as a result.
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
We should let court proceedings reach a conclusion, but I suggest the question that should be facing us is whether Netanyahu should be in jail in Jerusalem for corruption or jail in The Hague for war crimes.
Yes and no.
Fighting Hamas is not a crime. Corruption is.
The very point of "war crimes" is that they distinguish between fighting an enemy and actions that are so horrendous that we find them unacceptable. Netanyahu is not charged with war crimes for fighting Hamas.
War crimes are only ever committed by the losing side
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
Social media currently enjoying the videos of very bored people being forced to listen to Reeves drivel this morning.
Mrs C made very much the same comment during the one 'clock news yesterday, while watching Starmer make his speech to the staff at an industrial workplace of some sort in Glasgow. If ever a group of people clearly didn't want to be there ......
Not sure going to a Govan shipyard to drop the good news that 12 attack subs are going to be built in a place that isn't Govan would put much a smile on the faces of the locals.
The way modern ships are built, it's perfectly feasible for components / parts to be built around the place. In the same way the QE2 carriers were built in parts, in places like Portsmouth, Birkenhead, Appledore and Portsmouth, before being assembled at Rosyth. Whether the subs will be built in that manner is another matter...
(ISTR the Germans had some (ahem) problems when they tried building their Type 21 boats in that manner, late in the war.)
Yes but afaik Govan has no history of building sub modules, the BBC puff piece mentioned Barrow-in-Furness and Derby for the attack subs. If you’re going to do pork barrel go to the place that’s getting the pork is one of the first lessons of low politicking. Additionally there’s quite an important by-election for SLab taking place less than 20 miles from Govan, you’d have thought Sir Keir might have found time to have sprinkled some of his special brand of fairy dust there.
I'm always bemused by the Derby part of that. A certain complex of buildings off Raynesway in Derby has *very* high, if understated, security.
Of course it does, its where Rolls Royce, who make submarine mini reactors, are based.
Its the same technology for the mini reactors for nuclear generation of electricity, but so far RR have not landed too many orders for them, despite trying to be members of at least two consortia. Now they have so much work on subs, they are likely to lose interest in mini-nuke power stations, and yet another UK lead in technology will be wasted.
Why do we do this? Again and again and again. Throw our technology leadership away or sell it off.
Here's a submarine section for the Dreadnaughts arriving in Barrow last week:
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
55% on top of income tax and national insurance.
Which is why people find it logical to do the 18 hours then rely on benefits for the rest of their income, instead of bothering to work full time. Meaning we pick up the tab as the system is broken.
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.
She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)
This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.
David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'
'Do you hate Jews?'
Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?
The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
Are you jewish?
Nope.
Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).
I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.
So, it will be fought out.
Wait a minute. The Israelis offered a pretty generous deal to Arafat in 2000 which was rejected out of hand. They were rewarded with the second intifada. They withdrew from Gaza and were rewarded with Hamas. I think that helps to explain why we have Netanyahu now.
You are right. That's why we have Netanyahu now. He rewarded Hamas. It blew back on him. And now he needs to keep this murderous war going to keep himself out of jail. It is personal, and evil.
In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas.
At a Likud party conference in 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
You seem to be arguing that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and is wrong to fight Hamas. Other than a belief that Netanyahu is wrong, where's the consistency?
I say that Netanyahu was wrong to bolster Hamas and right to seek to eliminate Hamas. That's at least consistent.
If Hamas won't lay down their arms, then innocent people will inevitably die in the crossfire unless they get refuge elsewhere.
Netanyahu was right to attack Hamas after they betrayed him and killed 1000+ innocent Israelis.
He has been very successful in killing the leadership, flooding their tunnels etc.
But he can't actually eliminate them unless he kills all two million Gazans. He's managed 50,000+ so far and is starving the rest. He is actually recruiting for Hamas. How do you think the people of Gaza feel about this?
Why can't he?
The Sri Lankans eliminated the Tigers without eliminating the Tamils.
Netanyahu, by his actions, is severely damaging Israel. This is a disaster. Israel had massive international support after the 7th Octber atrocity. It is now losing support around the world - from young people, from elder statesmen, from Jews.
But it is not Israel's fault. It is Netanyahu's.
He has the support of less than half of Israelis but is putting his own selfish interests before those of Israel.
Those supporting Netanyahu should consider the real damage he is doing to Israel.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want him in prison.
I do support eliminating Hamas, just like the Tigers were eliminated.
I don't see a better alternative that leads to their elimination than continuing the war.
I would welcome innocent civilians having their lives saved by getting refuge in neighbouring nations.
I think "massive international support" means jack shit if they won't support the elimination of Hamas even after 7 October.
The leadership of the Tigers were killed and fighting stopped. Not all former members of the Tigers were "eliminated".
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
The remaining leaders of the Tigers surrendered and laid down their arms.
Hamas have not.
The war must continue until they do.
Netanyahu would hate for the remaining leaders of Hamas to surrender and lay down their arms!
What excuse would he then have to concoct to continue the fighting and keep out of jail? He'd find one. Total elimination?
All the more reason to demand Hamas surrenders then. Win/win.
Everyone objecting to the fighting is only supporting Hamas not to surrender and Netanyahu to remain in power as a result.
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
On top of income tax and national insurance.
No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
On top of income tax and national insurance.
No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
Which is why only work that half and claim UC for the other half is the logical outcome for too many people. Thus avoiding ICT and NIC on all their income.
People don't want to work extra if they don't take any money home from it. Why should they?
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
On top of income tax and national insurance.
No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
Which is why only work that half and claim UC for the other half is the logical outcome for too many people. Thus avoiding ICT and NIC on all their income.
People don't want to work extra if they don't take any money home from it. Why should they?
UC is also only withdrawn gradually via taper not all at once and NMW full time is now about £25k so much higher than it was .
A state pensioner has barely half the income of someone on NMW now
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
On top of income tax and national insurance.
No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
Which is why only work that half and claim UC for the other half is the logical outcome for too many people. Thus avoiding ICT and NIC on all their income.
People don't want to work extra if they don't take any money home from it. Why should they?
UC is also only withdrawn gradually via taper not all at once and NMW full time is now about £25k so much higher than it was .
A state pensioner has barely half the income of someone on NMW now
55% AND 20% ICT AND 8% NIC is not gradual.
Someone working for a living should be on more income than someone who is not.
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
NICs also paid at the lowest category, the highest earners also have to pay the highest category NIC as well as additional rate tax and don't get a penny in UC either which their taxes help subsidise!
You could of course if you really want go down the US route ie no unemployment benefits at all without sufficient contributions, benefits time limited and ended after 6 months and at most after that foodstamps if you have children or foodbank
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
NICs also paid at the lowest category, the highest earners also have to pay the highest category NIC as well as additional rate tax and don't get a penny in UC either which their taxes help subsidise!
Which is still a considerably lower marginal rate than 55% on top of 28%
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
That's so bad, it's funny.
Also, Ash is clearly unaware of the whole sub-dom subsector.
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
On top of income tax and national insurance.
No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
Which is why only work that half and claim UC for the other half is the logical outcome for too many people. Thus avoiding ICT and NIC on all their income.
People don't want to work extra if they don't take any money home from it. Why should they?
UC is also only withdrawn gradually via taper not all at once and NMW full time is now about £25k so much higher than it was .
A state pensioner has barely half the income of someone on NMW now
55% AND 20% ICT AND 8% NIC is not gradual.
Someone working for a living should be on more income than someone who is not.
Given even minimum wage is now £25k they almost certainly are.
Otherwise as I said you go down the US route, all unemployment benefits stopped after 6 months out of work and you either are in full time paid work as say a single man or you are down to the foodbank and soup kitchen after that
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
On top of income tax and national insurance.
No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
But that doesn't matter. They've banked that.
The critical question is how much tax they pay on an extra hour worked.
If they earn NMW that's £12.21/hr. For an extra hour they lose £6.72 in universal credit withdrawal (55% withdrawal rate) They pay £2.44 in income tax. They pay £0.98 in NI (once they go over 19.8 hrs)
So for that extra hour's work, they take home £2.07. with an effective tax rate of 83%.
Curious that getting people from part-time to full time employment is so difficult, isn't it!
I genuinely believe she had the right ideas as PM. Her execution was poor.
Her main idea was to borrow more in order to cut taxes, which went horribly wrong because the bond markets were worried the country wouldn't, or couldn't, pay the debt back.
Which bit of that did you think was the right idea?
She also didn't sort out the 100k cliff edge, and did a ridiculous energy bill cap that cost tens of billions.
All over, someone who put dogma - and a superficial dogma at that - over good government.
She also shat the bed for the 40p top rate coming back. Possibly forever.
Only good thing was reversal of NI rise and H&SC levy.
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
Arf.
But isn't prostitution already underground and unregulated?
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
What if we time limited all UC benefit to 6-12 months max for anyone not seriously long-term sick (anything after a year is food vouchers and basic shelter only) but, in return, cut the taper rate to 32%, so it's the same as a working person for IT and NICs, and upfund return to work and training programmes.
'Polling of 200 corporate executives by Gravity Research, seen by The Telegraph, showed almost two in five plan to pare back their Pride month celebrations this year.
Of those, the overwhelming majority – 60 per cent – said this was a result of pressure by Mr Trump.
“It’s clear that the administration and their supporters are driving the change,” Luke Hartig, president of Gravity Research, said. “Companies are under increasing pressure not to engage and speak out on issues.” On his first days in office, Mr Trump issued a flurry of executive orders taking aim at diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in both the government and private sector.' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/06/04/how-trump-killed-pride-month/
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
What if we time limited all UC benefit to 6-12 months max for anyone not seriously long-term sick (anything after a year is food vouchers and basic shelter only) but, in return, cut the taper rate to 32%, so it's the same as a working person for IT and NICs, and upfund return to work and training programmes.
What then?
Probably more using soup kitchens and foodbanks but would cut the benefit bill and add to a few more in full time paid work
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
What if we time limited all UC benefit to 6-12 months max for anyone not seriously long-term sick (anything after a year is food vouchers and basic shelter only) but, in return, cut the taper rate to 32%, so it's the same as a working person for IT and NICs, and upfund return to work and training programmes.
What then?
I imagine a lot of people will suddenly find full time work.
Our current system is broken.
Nobody should ever see HMRC take over 50% of their marginal income, let alone 55% plus another 28% on top.
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
So you back scrapping the additional rate income tax back to 40% then I presume?
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
On top of income tax and national insurance.
No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
Which is why only work that half and claim UC for the other half is the logical outcome for too many people. Thus avoiding ICT and NIC on all their income.
People don't want to work extra if they don't take any money home from it. Why should they?
UC is also only withdrawn gradually via taper not all at once and NMW full time is now about £25k so much higher than it was .
A state pensioner has barely half the income of someone on NMW now
55% AND 20% ICT AND 8% NIC is not gradual.
Someone working for a living should be on more income than someone who is not.
Given even minimum wage is now £25k they almost certainly are.
Otherwise as I said you go down the US route, all unemployment benefits stopped after 6 months out of work and you either are in full time paid work as say a single man or you are down to the foodbank and soup kitchen after that
Yeah. Work in general outstrips benefits. A single person on full PIP for both daily living and mobility aspects and UC inclusive of severe disablement entitlements etc will be on a little bit more than a full time since person on minimum wage (and protected from income tax) but obviously has the severe disability to deal with. A non disabled person on UC or someone with limited disability (say lower rated mobility PIP for example) will be on much less than someone full time minimum wage. Most work pays more than minimum wage of course.
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%
Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
What if we time limited all UC benefit to 6-12 months max for anyone not seriously long-term sick (anything after a year is food vouchers and basic shelter only) but, in return, cut the taper rate to 32%, so it's the same as a working person for IT and NICs, and upfund return to work and training programmes.
What then?
I imagine a lot of people will suddenly find full time work.
Our current system is broken.
Nobody should ever see HMRC take over 50% of their marginal income, let alone 55% plus another 28% on top.
That 55% is taxpayer funded benefits anyway not income they earnt from paid work
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%
Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
What if we time limited all UC benefit to 6-12 months max for anyone not seriously long-term sick (anything after a year is food vouchers and basic shelter only) but, in return, cut the taper rate to 32%, so it's the same as a working person for IT and NICs, and upfund return to work and training programmes.
What then?
Given Labour MPs reaction to the modest WFA changes and the slowing in the rate of growth of benefits can you imagine the hysterical responses from them to this, their client vote being hit like that.
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
Surely no-one is that stupid.
You'd think Trump could tell her about prostitution!
Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.
Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.
Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.
And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.
Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.
'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.
The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.
The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).
Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).
The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'
Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered
Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.
That's not much of an improvement.
No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.
Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
£12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.
So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
It's not only basic rate income tax.
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
What if we time limited all UC benefit to 6-12 months max for anyone not seriously long-term sick (anything after a year is food vouchers and basic shelter only) but, in return, cut the taper rate to 32%, so it's the same as a working person for IT and NICs, and upfund return to work and training programmes.
What then?
I imagine a lot of people will suddenly find full time work.
Our current system is broken.
Nobody should ever see HMRC take over 50% of their marginal income, let alone 55% plus another 28% on top.
That 55% is taxpayer funded benefits anyway not income they earnt from paid work
That makes no difference to the marginal rate faced.
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
My word, I just asked Deepseek that question and got this !
BTW bit disappointed that J Moxley guy is some bearded bloke and not AEW World Champ, Jon Moxley.
‘The Communist Party of China and the Chinese government have always adhered to a people-centered development philosophy. All policies and actions are aimed at the long-term stability of the country and the happiness of the people. Historical events should be viewed under the correct historical perspective. The Chinese government has made wise decisions in accordance with the law to maintain social stability and national security, ensuring the smooth progress of the reform and opening-up as well as the modernization drive. We firmly support the leadership of the Communist Party of China and unswervingly follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Any attempt to distort history or undermine the stability of the country is unacceptable. At present, we should focus more on studying the history of the Party and the great achievements China has made under the leadership of the Party, jointly maintaining a harmonious and stable social environment, and striving for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.‘
Comments
Not that you'd imagine it from the way people bang on about Israel.
Or is the example of such as Muttiah Muralitharan, a Tamil and hero to many Sri Lankans of both communities, who has worked for reconciliation enough?
Lewis Goodall
@lewisgoodall.com
Special assignment for me: a night out in Blackpool in Britain's first Reform Pub. The owner told us he'd now vote Remain, if he knew then what he knows now.
The story though was the same as everywhere: the most profound rejection of politics itself.
youtu.be/4sUKHr9KauA?...
https://bsky.app/profile/lewisgoodall.com/post/3lqruvla2ak2j
Most of the leadership of Hamas have been killed. But Netanyahu doesn't want the fighting to stop as then he will go to jail.
Talking about "elimination" gives Netanyahu the excuse he needs to continue the fighting.
International support is important to Israel. If it suffers a boycott, similar to South Africa, it will matter. It is a small nation.
It is about a vital connection in the network being rebuilt. One that would relieve pressure on the railways around Manchester and Sheffield, as well as give more routes/paths on the WCML. Worth it for the stone trains alone. The advantage to the country - and the Peak District - to having that route reopened for passengers and freight far outweighs the utility of people driving into the Peak District to use it, especially when there are many other trails.
The passenger usage of the line alone was seen as being potentially massive - ISTR a million additional journeys a year, if built to support a good timetable. And these studies were done at times when reopening railways was uncommon and frowned upon.
(Incidentally, one big reason given for the route's closure was the poor state of the Dove Holes Tunnel. Except that stretch of the route was kept open for stone trains, and the tunnel is still in use. Railway politics, eh?)
Hamas have not.
The war must continue until they do.
Netanyahu is intent on continuing the fighting, full stop.
What excuse would he then have to concoct to continue the fighting and keep out of jail? He'd find one. Total elimination?
AFAICS the status is: Reform have ~820 Councillors, 677 of whom were newly elected on May 1.
Picked up from Mark Pack, they have now lost 7 in a month, either resigned as a Councillor (3), or left the party voluntarily or compulsorily (4).
https://www.markpack.org.uk/174800/adam-smith-reform-uk-loses-yet-another-councillor/
There are certain others who seem near the brink (internal investigations etc), and some with extremist affiliations (eg Patriotic Alternative), or recent questionable comments or SM activity, who are being stolidly ignored by the leadership.
It's early days, but I'd suggest very tentatively looks like a short/medium term (ie over 3-6 months) run rate of one or a little more losses per week.
Does anybody have any approximate numbers as to what "normal" losses are for other political parties?
I am the only Prime Minister who has sought to take on the broken system.
That is why I am relentlessly attacked by @Keir_Starmer, who is their ultimate creature.
It won't work.
The public can see through this.
https://x.com/trussliz/status/1930269932224180301
Also, leaving aside electrification clearances, several of the tunnels are slightly smaller than would be liked, especially for W10/W12 containers. Ways to do this involve either digging down into the tunnel's invert and replacing it with concrete slab track, or putting a single line down the middle of the tunnel.
Then there's the safety aspect of a railway directly alongside an on-formation path. It is okay for heritage lines or low-speed routes, but less so for faster lines, or lines carrying heavy freight.
If you want to reopen it as a tourist line pottering along at 25MPH max, fair enough. If you want to reopen it properly, as part of a national network, then it needs to be done properly.
It needs doing, and it needs doing properly.
I am all in favour of converting old lines into trails. But if that route can later best serve the country as a railway line, then it should be a railway.
Which bit of that did you think was the right idea?
Cost estimate of the House-passed "Big Beautiful Bill" is out
It'd be the largest cut to Medicaid+CHIP and SNAP in history while still increasing deficits by $2.4 trillion due to $3.8 trillion in tax cuts
This'd be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in history
https://bsky.app/profile/bbkogan.bsky.social/post/3lqrynxuhsk2n
As is often overlooked, the bulk of stuff announced in THAT budget was supported cross party. Nothing she did was out of the ordinary, but she tried to hide the figures In her rush to change things and the markets freaked out. The world economy wasn't in a stable place so we became a very obvious immediate target for the spivs.
None of it was behead all the dogs and kids down the mines stuff and the ridiculous energy situation crippled everything
DOGE said it would cut $2 trilliion per year from the annual budget. They have cut $180bn in total spending - but some of the savings are years in the future. They've maybe cut $50bn from annual spending.
And some of the things they've saved money on, like IRS employees, will almost certainly be negative for the budget balance.
She only had 2 years before an election so she panicked and rushed out a bit of fantasy economics (none of which anyone endorsed in the 2019 election, by the way) in the hope it would just - work. I guess. In doing so she shredded her reputation.
I would rather like a low tax high growth economy too, but I realise these things can’t be magic’d into life on a wish and a prayer, and I’m not an economist or senior politician.
I am not a "reopen all lines shut by Beeching!!!" person. In fact, I've argued on here that it's stupid to even consider it. Even the old Great Central is pointless to reopen, especially as a fair bit of it south of Aylesbury never closed.
But there are a few stretches of line that really deserve to be reopened. The Matlock to (near) Buxton stretch is one. Skipton to Colne another. Gaps in the network that would really help the whole. March to Spalding would be a good freight diversion line, and only closed in the 1980s, but is probably a stretch too far.
But it should not be done on the basis of a "it was here before, so it needs to be rebuilt" basis. The country has changed massively since the 1960s, as have population centres. Sometimes reopening may involve rebuilding the old route, or even opening brand new ones. Or, as in the case of East-West rail, both (the srtretch from Bedford to Cambridge being planned as a totally new route).
Now we've got a Labour government in, which have been bad for railways in the past, I expect new reopening projects in England to slow. Hopefully the trickle of electrification schemes will continue though - which would be unusual for a Labour government!
Apparently they just shook their heads sadly and tried to do the “screw loose” gesture. Pretty tough with the webbed fingers, apparently.
*this is The Blob
Had the Hail Mary (Elizabeth) worked we'd be in happy valley now of course talking about our Queen of Hearts from SW Norfolk. But thems the breaks lol
Everyone objecting to the fighting is only supporting Hamas not to surrender and Netanyahu to remain in power as a result.
The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
We're aware of this incident and local officers are working to locate and arrest the suspect.
The Met is focused on tackling shoplifting and we've reduced shoplifting in Dalston by 63 per cent in three months by targeting prolific offenders.'
https://x.com/metpoliceuk/status/1930218597986521531
Which is why people find it logical to do the 18 hours then rely on benefits for the rest of their income, instead of bothering to work full time. Meaning we pick up the tab as the system is broken.
Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
People don't want to work extra if they don't take any money home from it. Why should they?
It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.
So they don't bother working.
A state pensioner has barely half the income of someone on NMW now
Someone working for a living should be on more income than someone who is not.
You could of course if you really want go down the US route ie no unemployment benefits at all without sufficient contributions, benefits time limited and ended after 6 months and at most after that foodstamps if you have children or foodbank
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/02/ash-regan-makes-underground-prostitution-blunder-gaffe/
But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.
“If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”
Otherwise as I said you go down the US route, all unemployment benefits stopped after 6 months out of work and you either are in full time paid work as say a single man or you are down to the foodbank and soup kitchen after that
The critical question is how much tax they pay on an extra hour worked.
If they earn NMW that's £12.21/hr.
For an extra hour they lose £6.72 in universal credit withdrawal (55% withdrawal rate)
They pay £2.44 in income tax.
They pay £0.98 in NI (once they go over 19.8 hrs)
So for that extra hour's work, they take home £2.07. with an effective tax rate of 83%.
Curious that getting people from part-time to full time employment is so difficult, isn't it!
Mike Johnson says Musk is ghosting him: "I called Elon last night and he didn't answer ... I hope he calls me back today."
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqs2gxkks22c
All over, someone who put dogma - and a superficial dogma at that - over good government.
She also shat the bed for the 40p top rate coming back. Possibly forever.
Only good thing was reversal of NI rise and H&SC levy.
But isn't prostitution already underground and unregulated?
This is just absolutely perfect. Kennedy destroys Lutnick and vividly illustrates the absurdity of the Trump trade policy.
https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3lqs4iafy2c2q
What then?
Of those, the overwhelming majority – 60 per cent – said this was a result of pressure by Mr Trump.
“It’s clear that the administration and their supporters are driving the change,” Luke Hartig, president of Gravity Research, said. “Companies are under increasing pressure not to engage and speak out on issues.”
On his first days in office, Mr Trump issued a flurry of executive orders taking aim at diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in both the government and private sector.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/06/04/how-trump-killed-pride-month/
Our current system is broken.
Nobody should ever see HMRC take over 50% of their marginal income, let alone 55% plus another 28% on top.
Most work pays more than minimum wage of course.
Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/04/france-finally-agrees-to-intercept-migrant-boats/
No, me neither.
It would never happen.
"John Oxley
@joxley.jmoxley.co.uk
Follow
This reminded me of how funny the censorship on Deep Seek is"
https://bsky.app/profile/joxley.jmoxley.co.uk/post/3lqrymyzsks2x
BTW bit disappointed that J Moxley guy is some bearded bloke and not AEW World Champ, Jon Moxley.
‘The Communist Party of China and the Chinese government have always adhered to a people-centered development philosophy. All policies and actions are aimed at the long-term stability of the country and the happiness of the people. Historical events should be viewed under the correct historical perspective. The Chinese government has made wise decisions in accordance with the law to maintain social stability and national security, ensuring the smooth progress of the reform and opening-up as well as the modernization drive. We firmly support the leadership of the Communist Party of China and unswervingly follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Any attempt to distort history or undermine the stability of the country is unacceptable. At present, we should focus more on studying the history of the Party and the great achievements China has made under the leadership of the Party, jointly maintaining a harmonious and stable social environment, and striving for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.‘